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 quashed reassessment proceedings, declaring the assessment order void ab initio due to critical procedural failures, including the use of a manual DIN and jurisdictional violation of the Faceless Assessment regime. This ruling affirms the mandatory nature of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 for all tax orders.
The Tribunal found that additions made purely on estimated profit percentages cannot attract concealment penalty. Since no specific inaccuracy or suppression was proven, ITAT deleted the penalty in full. The ruling aligns with precedents from Delhi, Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, and Gujarat High Courts.
ITAT Delhi held that no addition can be made u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act without there being any incriminating material relating to unabated assessment year. Therefore, additions made in the assessment order is deleted and appeal is partly allowed.
A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misreporting income and non-compliance with compliance. Learn about financial penalties and potential rigorous imprisonment for serious tax offenses.
The Bombay High Court confirmed a 15% addition on alleged bogus purchases, rejecting the Revenue’s plea for full disallowance. The Court held that reliance solely on Sales Tax Department data, without giving the assessee cross-examination rights, violates natural justice. With concurrent factual findings by lower authorities, no substantial question of law was found to arise.
Bombay High Court quashed reassessment proceedings initiated using data from a valid IDS declaration, holding that once accepted under the Income Disclosure Scheme, the Revenue cannot revisit or reassess the same income.
ITAT deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling the AO failed to levy the correct charge (concealment vs. inaccurate particulars), making the penalty unsustainable. finding the AO charged the assessee with concealment of income when the facts indicated furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Mumbai set aside a ₹74 lakh unexplained investment addition, remanding the case to the AO after finding the AO ignored evidence and based the addition on an incorrect loan amount.
This case clarifies that eligibility for the Section 80-IA deduction must be verified project-by-project, irrespective of a taxpayer’s status in a previous year. The Tribunal held that only projects previously approved by the Settlement Commission are eligible, requiring fresh scrutiny for all new or unverified contracts.
The Karnataka High Court set aside a penalty notice and order under Section 271DA for violating Section 269ST, holding the proceedings were time-barred. Following the K. Umesh Shetty precedent, the Court ruled that the delay between the AO’s reference and the penalty notice constituted unreasonable laches, vitiating the entire action.
