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 Mumbai held that additional evidence demonstrating that no tax advantage accrued to assessee owing to continuous losses needs verification. Accordingly, matter of imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) remanded back.
ITAT Kolkata quashes S. 271(1)(c) penalty against Baidya Nath Dey (AY 2011-12). Penalty notice invalid as the AO failed to strike off the irrelevant limb, a defect confirmed by the Calcutta High Court.
ITAT Kolkata deletes the Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Asit Kumar Dutta. The Tribunal ruled that an incorrect deduction claimed by mistake, with full disclosure, does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld reopening of assessment for undisclosed high-value property sale, but remanded the Rs. 2.01 crore capital gain for fresh valuation due to flawed valuation reports.
Explore the ITAT Cochin’s decision in the Chundayil Kalam Girijadevi vs. ITO case, which sets a precedent that a tax penalty cannot be levied for an honest mistake in claiming a higher gratuity exemption.
In a ruling for Sureshkumar Prabhulal Thakkar, the ITAT Ahmedabad has cancelled a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), stating that an Assessing Officer cannot impose a penalty simply because an expense claim is disallowed.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a penalty cannot be imposed on estimated additions from bogus purchases. Tribunal affirmed that without cogent evidence, estimated profits don’t warrant a penalty.
Bombay High Court confirms tax penalties cannot be imposed solely on additions made through ad hoc estimations, dismissing a revenue appeal against Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd.
PCIT Vs Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court in PCIT vs Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd. examined the validity of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of alleged bogus purchases claimed by the assessee. The appeal arose from an order dated 31 July 2020 […]
Bombay High Court upheld CIT(A) and ITAT orders deleting penalty of ₹2.75 lakh, holding that ad-hoc estimation of profit from alleged hawala purchases does not amount to concealment of income.
