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 ITAT Jaipur held that joint ownership of a new property does not bar full exemption under Section 54F if the assessee funds the purchase and retains control over the asset.
The Tribunal ruled that partial disallowance of section 54F deduction, without concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal upheld the addition because the assessee could not prove the creditor’s identity, financial capacity, or the genuineness of the ₹50 lakh credit. Defective confirmation, NIL income of the creditor, and absence of source details weighed against the assessee. The ruling emphasizes that Section 68 requires clear, credible evidence.
The Tribunal held that conflicting judicial views on Section 10(38) exemption made the issue debatable. Since the assessee disclosed all facts, penalty for concealment could not survive despite later denial of exemption.
ITAT held that the assessee had proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender through affidavits, ITR and audited accounts. Since the AO brought no contrary evidence, the Section 69A addition was deleted.
The tribunal ruled that funds donated to certain political parties were routed back to the donor, lacking genuineness. Deductions under Section 80GGC were disallowed as a result.
ITAT ruled that reopening assessment under Section 147 is invalid if the filed return is ignored. The case was remitted for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee to substantiate claims under Section 54F.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of a ₹305.49 crore penalty imposed on a bank, ruling that section 115JB (MAT) does not apply to banks under the Banking Regulation Act. The decision emphasizes that penalties linked to inapplicable provisions cannot be sustained.
Cane Deveopment Council Rohana Kalan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The appeals concern penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2010–11 and 2011–12. Four appeals filed by two assessees were heard together due to similarity in facts, with one matter treated as the lead case. The assessee challenged the penalty […]
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that penalty cannot continue after the underlying addition ceases to exist. The ruling highlights strict adherence to the principle of dependency between quantum and penalty.
