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...
ITAT Delhi held that DRP is a quasi-judicial authority and is required to issue directions on all the objections raised by assessee. Failure to adjudicate certain components results into violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, matter set aside to file of DRP.
The Tribunal quashed penalties for AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13, holding that show-cause notices must clearly specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c). Vague notices violating natural justice cannot sustain penalties. This reinforces the strict requirement for specificity in penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal recognized the assessee’s health issues and financial weakness as valid grounds for condoning delay, following the Supreme Court’s principle favouring substantial justice. It held that repeated notices for the same enquiry cannot multiply the default. Consequently, the penalty was scaled down to a single default, offering relief of ₹40,000.
ITAT held that Section 69 cannot apply when the assessee is not proved to own the cash. Unrebutted affidavits established the source, and mere suspicion cannot justify an addition.
The Delhi ITAT held that reopening an assessment based solely on audit objections, without fresh material, is invalid. The tribunal emphasized that reassessment cannot be used for a mere change of opinion
The High Court declined to interfere with a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) after the Department failed to produce a 2008 notice. The Court directed the assessee’s legal heirs to pursue the statutory appeal, noting the factual dispute requires appellate examination.
The ITAT held that blank letterheads found during a search are dumb documents and cannot constitute incriminating material. Since no corroborative evidence existed, all 153A additions and penalties were invalidated, reaffirming that suspicion alone cannot sustain assessments.
The Court held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed while the quantum appeal was still pending before the ITAT. The penalty was stayed for being premature under Section 275(1)(a).
ITAT Delhi held that AY 2011-12 is barred by limitation under Section 153C as the deemed search year started only when documents were received in 2021, nullifying the reassessment and related penalties.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment on the same grounds already examined in the original scrutiny amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. With no new material on record, the reassessment was found invalid. The ruling reinforces that the AO cannot revisit an earlier view in the guise of section 147 proceedings.
