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 essential house fixtures like cupboards, modular kitchen, and beds are integral to habitability and can be included in the cost of improvement. AO was directed to allow Rs. 3.50 lakh claimed in long-term capital gains computation.
ITAT held that non-receipt of statutory notices by an NRI constituted reasonable cause, restoring the reassessment and deleting penalties under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c). penalties cannot survive when non-compliance arises from legitimate ignorance.
The Tribunal observed that additions forming the basis of the penalty had not yet attained finality before the first appellate authority. It therefore restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after completion of the quantum appeal.
ITAT Surat relied on precedents (Hari Gopal, Marksans Pharma, Boparai P. Ltd.) to hold that ad-hoc or percentage-based additions do not trigger Section 271(1)(c) penalty. Appeal allowed, penalty deleted.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s argument that TOLA extended the time for issuing notice, holding that for A.Y. 2015-16 the limitation expired on 31.03.2019. Consequently, the 21.04.2021 notice lacked legal authority. Key takeaway: TOLA does not revive time-barred assessments.
Reopening Based on Incorrect LTCG Information Invalid; Long-Held Penny-Stock Shares Treated as Genuine — ITAT Mumbai Quashes Additions
The Tribunal held that failure to file a return under section 139 or within the 148-notice deadline triggers Explanation 3, deeming concealment regardless of later tax payment. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A could not stand because the JPACK ledger titled “SABARI” was not proven to belong to the assessee. The ruling emphasises lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in the seized material.
The Bombay High Court held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 on 5th April 2022 is barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal decision and prior High Court rulings.
ITAT Delhi admitted additional evidence proving that bank credits considered unexplained were interest income already declared in returns. The Revenue could not contest the factual reconciliation. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted in full.
