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...
ITAT upheld deletion of penalty as the exemption issue was pending before the High Court. The assessee had filed an undertaking under Section 158A. The ruling highlights that penalty cannot be sustained when the core issue is yet to be finally adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C may not apply if properties are held as stock-in-trade. It remanded the case to verify whether transactions were part of real estate business.
The case examined the validity of reassessment notices issued beyond the permissible period. The Court ruled that such notices are invalid in light of binding precedent, leading to quashing of the entire reassessment.
The Tribunal found that the AO wrongly taxed an investment in an incorrect assessment year. Evidence showed the purchase occurred earlier than the year under consideration. The decision highlights the importance of correct year-wise taxation.
The Tribunal held reopening valid as tangible material showed undisclosed capital gains. It ruled that execution of a registered sale deed triggers tax liability even if consideration is disputed.
The issue was whether a single satisfaction note for multiple years is valid under Section 153C. ITAT Pune held it invalid, ruling that separate satisfaction per year is mandatory, thereby quashing the entire assessment.
The Tribunal held that change in accounting method causing timing difference cannot lead to double taxation. Since prior period adjustment was allowed and no revenue loss occurred, the addition was deleted.
Bright Line Test (BLT) could not be applied for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) of Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenditure under the transfer pricing provisions.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when errors are voluntarily corrected during assessment. Bona fide computational mistakes without concealment do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Dazzler Confectionery Company Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Deleted Due to Defective Notice – No Specific Charge Mentioned AO levied penalty of ₹44.79 lakh u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowances relating to pre-operative expenses & 35D deduction. Penalty notice u/s 274 was issued using “concealment OR furnishing inaccurate particulars” without specifying the exact charge. Assessee […]