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 ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that penalty cannot be imposed where the assessee’s claim is based on a genuine interpretation of Section 44 and Rule 5 and involves a debatable issue.
The Madras High Court held that recovery of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) shall remain stayed when the main income tax appeal involving related issues has been admitted by the court.
ITAT condoned a significant seven-year delay in filing an appeal, recognizing assessee’s status as an NRI and his lack of awareness of assessment order as a bona fide cause. This ruling affirms the liberal, justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay under Section 249(3).
ITAT Mumbai held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was premature when the related quantum appeal was still pending, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Delhi deleted a Rs.20.33 crore penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that penalty notice was invalid because it failed to specify exact charge: concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Ruling reinforces that an ambiguous, omnibus notice is a jurisdictional defect that vitiates penalty, even if assessment order records satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred to make a newly purchased house habitable up to the date of occupation are eligible for Section 54 exemption, subject to verification.
Tribunal ruled that merely selling agricultural land does not make it a business transaction. It directed AO to reassess whether land was held for investment or trade based on intention, frequency and surrounding facts.
ITAT Pune deleted the penalty of Rs.2.74 lakh imposed under Section 270A(9) for misreporting income related to delayed PF/ESIC payments. The Tribunal ruled that since the assessee’s claim was based on prevailing High Court judgments and the issue was debatable until the Supreme Court ruling, the mere disallowance of expenditure, where all particulars were disclosed, does not attract a misreporting penalty.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted a ₹22.21 lakh penalty under Section 271AAB, ruling that the show-cause notice was defective for not specifying the charge. The Tribunal also held that mere stock valuation differences and an already offered cash investment do not qualify as “undisclosed income” under the section’s strict definition.
This case addresses the mismatch between Form 26AS receipts and income shown in the P&L account, which led to an addition for suppressed receipts. ITAT Pune allowed the appeal, relying on the SC ruling in TRF Ltd. to confirm that the company’s action of reversing the unrecovered billing as irrecoverable was a legitimate write-off, thus making the addition unjustified.
