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...
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.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying addition is remanded, directing the AO to re-decide the penalty after the quantum order is finalized.
ITAT held that most jewellery seized during a search could be accounted for from declared drawings and past income, reducing addition to ₹72.45 lakh. Ruling emphasizes that unexplained investment must be proven in relevant assessment year.
With all Section 68 additions deleted across the three years, the basis for penalties under Section 271(1)(c) disappeared. The Tribunal directed complete removal of penalties, highlighting that concealment cannot be presumed when additions themselves lack merit. The ruling reinforces the principle that penalty proceedings cannot survive defective assessments.
The Tribunal reduced commission estimations for sale/purchase and loan entries to 0.40% and 0.50%, excluding intra-group transactions. This ensures compliance with judicial precedents and prevents arbitrary income additions.
ITAT Jaipur clarified that penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory and requires proper examination of evidence and explanation by the assessee before imposition. Mere surrender of income does not constitute undisclosed income.
