Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when errors are voluntarily corrected during assessment. ...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unsustainable as 54F exemption failed due to builder delay, not taxpayer’s fault. Full dis...
Income Tax : Understand why an income-tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the charge isn't specified as concealment or inaccurate...
Income Tax : Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and...
Income Tax : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Sect...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan additions could not be sustained where the assessee furnished confirmations, bank statemen...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recor...
Income Tax : The Tribunal found no distinguishing factors between the assessee and another liquor trader whose GP rate of 3.13% had been accept...
Income Tax : The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscio...
Income Tax : Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) inter alia provides that w.e.f. 1 st April, 2017, the Assessing Officer, on an...
The issue was confirmation of penalty without reasons. The Tribunal held that a non-speaking appellate order violates law and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that artificial profits or losses arising from Client Code Modification in share transactions carried out in F&O segment requires transaction-wise reconciliation. Accordingly, matter restore to the file of AO.
The ITAT held that penalty cannot be imposed where a capital loss claim was voluntarily withdrawn during assessment. Since no tax benefit was availed, the case did not attract section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment was time-barred because limitation was wrongly computed from the search date. The key takeaway is that receipt of seized material governs jurisdiction for non-searched persons.
The issue was whether reassessment becomes invalid when the return is filed on the same day as the assessment order. The Tribunal held that such belated filing cannot nullify a best-judgment reassessment.
The issue was whether a holding company with no operating revenue could claim business expenses. The Tribunal held that making strategic investments to control subsidiaries is itself a business activity, allowing expenses and loss set-off.
The appellate authority had mechanically rejected additional evidence without reasons, resulting in denial of fair opportunity. The tribunal restored the quantum issue for reconsideration and quashed the consequential penalty.
The assessee neither filed returns nor responded to statutory notices, yet additions were deleted on appeal. ITAT held that absence of verification of source and compliance makes such deletion unsustainable.
The Revenue relied on alleged ₹4 crore unexplained investment to justify reopening beyond six years. The Tribunal ruled that even high-value allegations cannot override statutory limitation under section 153C.
The dispute arose from survey-based additions relying mainly on a statement and impounded agreement. The Tribunal held that the matter needed fresh examination and remanded it to the AO with one final opportunity.
