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 ITAT deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that once the capital gains deductions (Section 54EC/54F) are substantially allowed in the quantum appeal, there’s no concealment of income. The Tribunal emphasized that filing a belated return within Section 139(4) does not automatically invalidate a genuine deduction claim, making the penalty unsustainable.
Tribunal held that goodwill arising from court-approved amalgamation is a depreciable intangible asset. AO & CIT(A)’s disallowance based on colourable device allegation was quashed.
The Tribunal accepted documentary evidence, including a director’s affidavit and Company Law Board (CLB) orders, as credible proof of sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The case was restored, ensuring the assessee gets an opportunity to contest the 68 and House Property income additions.
Saroj Devi Haldiya vs. ITO: The ITAT Jaipur overturned an Rs.75 lakh addition under S. 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal ruled the reassessment was invalid due to borrowed satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, mechanical approval, and a severe violation of natural justice (two-day notice).
The ITAT confirmed the penalty levy, ruling that a subsequent rectification order allowing carry-forward losses doesn’t affect the penalty base. Penalty is tied to the tax evaded on the additions confirmed by the appellate body ( crore), not the final assessed income.
Visakhapatnam ITAT dismisses Revenue appeals, quashing protective additions on cotton mills. Protective assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 invalid as substantive addition was in A.Y. 2017-18.
The ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) cannot set aside a reassessment order framed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, as the limited power to remand only applies to best-judgment assessments under Section 144. The Tribunal sent the penny stock LTCG case back, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal strictly on its merits.
ITAT Jaipur holds u/s 159 that penalty survives assessee’s death and is enforceable against the legal heir. Recovery is strictly limited to the value of the inherited assets or estate.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted a ₹2.30 crore penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed on World Series Hockey Pvt Ltd, ruling that a disallowance of a bad debts claim made in good faith does not attract penalty.
The ITAT Mumbai, in Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani Vs ITO, deleted penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for notional income from house property, holding that penalty requires actual concealment, not notional additions.
