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 case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
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...
Tribunal held that natural justice was violated when notices were sent only by email despite explicit instructions otherwise. Appeals were restored with costs, and the Assessing Officer must reconsider the case after allowing additional evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that Explanation 5A applies only when the assessee is found possessing undisclosed tangible assets, which was not established. Since no such assets were discovered and the additions came from routine assessments, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. This clarifies that the deeming fiction under Explanation 5A is not automatic.
Explains how ITAT Pune held that unsecured loans prior to 01.04.2023 do not require proving the lender’s source of funds, leading to deletion of a ₹1.62 crore addition.
Tribunal quashed penalty where AO’s addition for alleged bogus purchases was purely estimated, emphasizing that penalties require concrete evidence of income concealment.
ITAT Delhi held that a reassessment notice issued three years after the relevant AY is invalid if the alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh, reinforcing the statutory threshold protection.
The Tribunal held that only the first non-compliance under Section 142(1) could attract penalty, deleting the remaining ₹50,000 imposed for repeated defaults. It also restored penalties under Sections 271A and 271(1)(c) for fresh adjudication since they depend on the pending quantum appeal.
ITAT Kolkata quashed a reassessment order, holding that NFAC had no jurisdiction before the formal notification of Section 151A. The ₹2.14 crore addition was deleted, highlighting that faceless assessments cannot be retroactively enforced.
ITAT held that absence of earlier evidence led to addition under section 68. Now, assessee allowed to submit all books, bank statements, and capital accounts, subject to compliance conditions.
ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid when concealment and inaccurate particulars are invoked together without specifying the exact charge. The ruling reinforces that penalty notices must be unambiguous and legally precise.
Tribunal holds that the CBDT circular exempting commercial transactions was wrongly ignored; AO must re-verify if the shareholder loan was a genuine business accommodation before taxing under Section 2(22)(e).
