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...
The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order in Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah Vs ACIT(OSD), restoring the addition dispute of ₹10,00,100 under Section 69A for fresh review.
ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal in Samir N. Shah Vs ITO, holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment or inaccurate particulars cannot be levied when the underlying income addition is made solely by estimating a gross profit rate on alleged bogus purchases, in the absence of concrete evidence like seized material or cash transactions.
ITAT Delhi rules in Mahabir vs ITO that the 1994 CBDT notification defines agricultural land limits for capital gains tax. Subsequent municipal expansions are irrelevant. Land 6km from Sohna Municipality was deemed non-taxable.
The ITAT ruled that the Assessing Officer’s mechanical application of Rule 8D for Section 14A disallowance was invalid without recording proper satisfaction. The Tribunal directed that only net interest (interest paid less interest earned) and only those investments that yielded exempt income should be considered for re-computation, upholding the assessee’s legal objections.
The Delhi High Court, in CIT v. Corteva Agriscience Pvt. Ltd., dismissed the Revenues appeals, confirming that penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act issued without specifying the specific charge or limb i.e. without striking off the irrelevant limb is erroneous. Accordingly, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that since the Delhi High Court had restored the Industrial Park’s original Rs. 80 IA approval, the subsequent disallowance based on the quashed withdrawal was invalid. This affirms that a valid judicial ruling overrides the Central Government’s withdrawal order, securing the tax benefit for the taxpayer.
The ITAT deleted penalties under both Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A, ruling that merely making a bona fide but ultimately unsustainable tax claim under the India-UK DTAA does not attract a penalty. The Tribunal held that a difference in legal interpretation, especially in complex international tax issues, does not constitute concealment or misreporting of income.
The ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order that allowed a Section 54B capital gains exemption, because the CIT(A) copied a co-owners case ruling without independently verifying the factual evidence of agricultural use. The Tribunal reiterated that the burden to prove agricultural use rests on the assessee and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision based on factual findings.
The Tribunal deleted the ₹10 lakh penalty, ruling that an estimated addition based on the non-genuineness of purchases does not constitute concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reaffirms the Supreme Court principle that making an unsustainable claim does not automatically attract a penalty.
