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 Tribunal held that section 115JB is not applicable to banks constituted as ‘corresponding new banks’ under the Banking Companies Act. As a result, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of bad debts became unsustainable. The ruling clarifies that MAT provisions cannot be applied where the statutory scope excludes the assessee.
The assessee’s appeal succeeded in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the additional income was already declared in the return. The court held that initiating penalty proceedings on disclosed income exceeds the AO’s jurisdiction and is impermissible.
ITAT Chandigarh quashed a Rs.16.24 lakh penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the fresh assessment accepted the returned income, confirming penalties require concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted new evidence without AO’s opportunity and remanded the case for re-examination of NRE deposit sources under Section 69.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) because the notice failed to specify whether it targeted concealment of income or inaccurate particulars. The ruling highlights the need for clarity in issuing tax penalties.
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.
