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...
Bombay High Court held that once appellate authorities delete a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), no substantial question of law arises. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that penalties were invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge—concealment, inaccurate particulars, under-reporting, or misreporting. The Tribunal reaffirmed that vague notices under Sections 271(1)(c) or 270A are legally unsustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a genuine ₹50 lakh loan received and fully repaid with interest cannot be treated as unexplained credit under Section 68. The addition by AO and CIT(A) was deleted as the assessee provided full banking and repayment evidence.
The ITAT Delhi held that omnibus notices issued under Section 274 r.w.s 271 were defective, invalidating penalties for AYs 2008-09 to 2011-12.
ITAT Mumbai held that consideration from a redevelopment agreement is taxable in hands of individual members, not co-operative housing society. Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹4.97 crore addition, confirming that society acted merely as a representative.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that penalty cannot be imposed where the assessee’s claim is based on a genuine interpretation of Section 44 and Rule 5 and involves a debatable issue.
The Madras High Court held that recovery of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) shall remain stayed when the main income tax appeal involving related issues has been admitted by the court.
ITAT condoned a significant seven-year delay in filing an appeal, recognizing assessee’s status as an NRI and his lack of awareness of assessment order as a bona fide cause. This ruling affirms the liberal, justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay under Section 249(3).
ITAT Mumbai held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was premature when the related quantum appeal was still pending, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Delhi deleted a Rs.20.33 crore penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that penalty notice was invalid because it failed to specify exact charge: concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Ruling reinforces that an ambiguous, omnibus notice is a jurisdictional defect that vitiates penalty, even if assessment order records satisfaction.
