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...
ITAT Surat struck down a 50% turnover-based income estimation, applying Section 44AD to compute actual presumptive profit at 8%. Key takeaway: AO cannot inflate income without legal basis.
he tribunal held that an appellate order based on an incorrect and reconstructed timeline of statutory notices is unsustainable. Errors in sequencing of notices strike at the root of jurisdiction and require fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that when the assessment order is remanded for de-novo adjudication, the very basis for penalty ceases to exist. Consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) become unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that when purchases are conclusively proved to be sham accommodation entries, the entire amount is disallowable under section 69C. Mere invoices and bank payments cannot override incriminating search evidence and admissions.
The tribunal ruled that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot stand when the quantum addition forming its basis is deleted. The key takeaway is that penalty proceedings automatically fail without a surviving assessment addition.
The ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271D cannot survive without recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer during pending assessment proceedings.
The issue was whether interest earned from a co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal held that such interest is deductible, as a co-operative bank is itself a co-operative society.
Gujarat High Court held that disallowance of claim made in return cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied in such case. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed and questions of law answered in favour of assessee.
The Tribunal examined whether agricultural land qualified as a non-capital asset and upheld taxation after finding it within the prescribed municipal distance. The ruling reiterates that physical verification and reliable evidence prevail over unsupported certificates.
The issue was the validity of a penalty notice combining concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ITAT ruled that vague notices violate natural justice and quashed the penalty.
