#section 271(1)(c)
Log in to FollowLatest section 271(1)(c) updates, provisions, case laws, compliance requirements, tax implications and expert analysis under Income-tax law on TaxGuru.

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty Invalid as AO Failed to Specify Charge: ITAT Delhi

ITAT Ahmedabad: No Penalty for Mere Wrong Claim – U/s 271(1)(c) Deleted

ITAT Mumbai: No Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) on Estimated Bogus Purchase Additions

ITAT Bangalore: Mere Wrong Claim u/s 54 Does Not Attract Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

ITAT Pune: No Penalty When Mistake Attributable to Tax Consultant – Bona Fide Conduct Accepted

Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed for Non-Payment of Advance Tax When No Taxable Income Exists

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty Upheld Due to Non-Bona Fide Claims & Failure to Disclose Income

Delhi HC Quashes 9-Year-Delayed Tax Notice Due to Lack of Proper Service

Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) Upheld on Bogus Purchases – ITAT Confirms Concealment

Penalty Deleted as Issue Becomes Debatable – HC Admission of Quantum Appeal Saves Assessee
![Huntsman Investment [Netherlands] BV: When Does a Buy-Back Become a Corporate Reorganisation](https://taxguru.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ITAT-DELHI.jpg)
Huntsman Investment [Netherlands] BV: When Does a Buy-Back Become a Corporate Reorganisation

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty Deleted Due to Pending HC Decision on Section 10(26BBB) Exemption Claim

Section 50C Not Applicable to Stock-in-Trade? ITAT Remands for Fresh Verification

Section 148 Notice Quashed as SC Ruling Settled Limitation Issue: Bombay HC
Explore the latest section 271(1)(c) updates on TaxGuru, including relevant Income-tax Act provisions, rules, notifications, circulars, judicial decisions and compliance guidance. The coverage highlights important tax positions, procedural requirements, assessments, deductions, penalties and litigation developments to help taxpayers and professionals understand the practical implications of changes in income-tax law.
