Income Tax : Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculati...
Income Tax : Grounds of Appeal related to the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , 1961 AY 2015-16 1. In the facts and circumstances of t...
Income Tax : Learn about the penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act of 1961 for various defaults and offenses. Find out the fines ...
Income Tax : Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against...
Income Tax : Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecu...
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 : ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Grey Orange India Pvt. Ltd., allowing income tax deduction on warranty expenses. Detailed analysis of...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules interest income on FDs linked to SEZ business operations is deductible under Section 80IAB. Analysis of Candor Gu...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court judgment on GE Capital vs. DCIT, distinguishing under-reporting and misreporting as separate offenses, resulting ...
Income Tax : Discover the ITAT Bangalore ruling on IBM Canada Limited vs. DCIT, where salary reimbursements of seconded employees were deemed n...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad's order canceling penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Co-owner sta...
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...
Read the detailed order by ITAT Bangalore regarding Samaja Seva Mandali vs. ITO. Assessing real intentions of trust in land purchase for school building construction.
Bombay High Court rules IT search under Section 132 invalid if authorization is based on irrelevant and unrelated material. Detailed case analysis inside.
xplore DCIT Vs Polyplex Corp. Limited case. Learn why penalty for disallowed tax claim isn’t justified. Details & key takeaways here.
Can penalty under Section 271(1)(c) be imposed if self-assessment tax was paid before notice u/s 148? Read the detailed analysis of Smt. Kavita Sachdev Vs ITO (ITAT Indore).
ITAT Chennai observed that differences in valuation opinions are common, and the assessee’s claim based on an approved valuer’s report cannot be deemed as concealment of income. Citing precedents from the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, the ITAT ruled that an incorrect claim in law does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT observed that the disallowance of expenses by the AO was on an estimate and ad hoc basis due to the absence of supporting evidence, rather than evidence of concealment of income. Referring to legal precedents, the ITAT emphasized that disallowance based on the magnitude of expenses or missing vouchers is insufficient to justify a penalty, especially without evidence of mala fide intent.
Tribunal ruled that mere disallowance of expenses or enhancement of returned income does not automatically warrant the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c)
Explore the detailed analysis of Mack Star Marketing Private Limited Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi regarding taxing unsold flats in real estate business, applicable from AY 2018-19. ITAT deletes notional rent addition for AY 2014-15.
Grounds of Appeal related to the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , 1961 AY 2015-16 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Jurisdictional AO is not justified in imposing penalty of 6,54,050.00 on the assessee which is illegal and imposed in a most arbitrary manner and assessee denies her […]
Understand the implications of unexplained expenditure as Hyfun Foods challenges an addition of Rs. 95,47,000/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. Detailed analysis and verdict included.
