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 Tribunal deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after substantially deleting the unexplained cash credit addition under Section 68. It held that penalty cannot survive when the quantum addition is largely removed and the remaining amount is estimated.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that once reassessment proceedings are quashed as void ab initio, the satisfaction recorded therein for initiating penalty proceedings cannot survive independently. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Jaya Lakshmi Rice Mills.
ITAT Delhi deleted transfer pricing adjustments after holding that retail and after-sales businesses could not be compared with wholesale trading to OEMs. The Tribunal ruled that comparables must satisfy functional and market similarity under Rule 10B(2).
The ITAT Ahmedabad restored reassessment proceedings after the assessee produced documents showing disputed property sales and pending civil litigation. The Tribunal held that additions relating to capital gains required fresh examination where sale transactions themselves were contested.
The Tribunal ruled that only 8% of disputed purchases could be added where the assessee had disclosed corresponding sales and made payments through banking channels. Entire purchase disallowance was held to distort true business income.
The Tribunal deleted penalty levied on society charges and depreciation disallowances after finding that the claims were fully disclosed in books and audited financial statements. It held that ad hoc disallowances alone cannot trigger concealment penalty.
Tribunal ruled that income tax demands not included in the approved resolution plan were irrevocably extinguished. The decision followed the terms of the NCLT-approved insolvency resolution plan restored by the Supreme Court.
Bangalore ITAT ruled that only solar days and not cumulative man-days should be considered while determining the existence of a Permanent Establishment under the India-Saudi Arabia DTAA. Since the assessee’s stay was only 90 days, no PE was held to exist in India.
SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue share. Court noted that such income could not be taxed again in member’s hands.
ITAT Delhi ruled that where an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C, the Assessing Officer should refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal set aside the capital gains addition for fresh determination.
