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...
The issue was whether incorrect tax treatment amounts to concealment. The Tribunal held that mere wrong classification in books does not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when additions are made on an estimated basis. It upheld deletion of penalty, emphasizing absence of concrete evidence of concealment.
The case examines whether penalty applies when a deduction claim is disallowed. ITAT held that full disclosure and bona fide claim prevent penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
ITAT held that penalty cannot be imposed where incorrect return was due to consultant’s misconduct. The ruling highlights that bona fide mistakes with voluntary tax payment negate penalty.
ITAT held that section 249(4) cannot be invoked where no taxable income arises in India. Appeals must be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds.
The Tribunal held that omission of taxable foreign exchange gain in the return attracts penalty. It noted that disclosure during assessment does not absolve liability. The ruling highlights importance of correct income reporting.
The dispute concerned enforcement of long-pending tax demands without timely action. The Court held that prolonged inaction by authorities and absence of proof of service violated fairness. It quashed the notice while allowing fresh remedies.
The issue was whether penalty for bogus purchases was justified. The Tribunal held that concealment through non-genuine purchases attracts penalty, confirming the levy.
The case examines whether penalty can be levied when the quantum issue is admitted by the High Court. The Tribunal held that admission of substantial questions of law makes the issue debatable. As a result, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly deleted.
The tribunal held that capital gains from share buyback are not taxable in India under treaty provisions. It clarified that such transactions qualify as corporate reorganisation. The key takeaway is that DTAA benefits override domestic tax provisions when more beneficial.
