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 Pune ruled that a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify the exact charge—concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Delhi ITAT upholds the ₹50 Lakh bogus sale addition against a jeweller, finding no proof of bullion transport and confirming the buyer was an entry operator.
Delhi ITAT confirms that an AO cannot disallow purchases of Rs.3.82 Cr as bogus (Adventure Resorts And Cruises Pvt. Ltd.) without rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145.
Delhi HC held that indexation benefit on Long Term Capital Gain for flat sale begins only from the date Builder Buyer Agreement is signed & not from Provisional Allotment Date
ITAT Mumbai ruled that the allotment of a flat to the assessee during AY 2007-08 does not attract tax under Section 56(2)(v), as the provision at that time applied only to money received, not immovable property.
ITAT Delhi ruled that cash deposits during demonetization, already reflected in the assessee’s books, cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. Entire Rs.53.51 lakh addition was deleted, ensuring no double taxation.
The ITAT Raipur set aside penalties under Section 271(1)(c) levied on Sai Baba Sansthan for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14, remanding the matter to the NFAC. The Tribunal held that the penalty’s survival is contingent upon the NFAC upholding the quantum additions on a de novo adjudication, relying on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents.
Jaipur ITAT dismisses Revenue’s appeals in Nath Corporation, Royal Jewellers, and Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal cases, deleting Rs. 3.3 crore in penalties.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeals of KPC Medical College And Hospital, setting aside penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAA, ruling that the show cause notices were invalid for failing to specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars).
ITAT Delhi quashes Rs.8.16 crore addition on share capital and commission, emphasizing that mere suspicion without evidence cannot justify tax additions. Investor genuineness and banking records were upheld.
