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 Raipur ITAT remanded the Omax Minerals tax case back to CIT(A) after finding that the company was denied a fair opportunity to be heard in a penalty proceeding. The ruling cites procedural irregularities.
The ITAT Kolkata quashed a penalty on a taxpayer, ruling that a one-time settlement from an employer was a capital receipt. The court held that no concealment of income occurred as the amount was disclosed in the tax return.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Cochin has ruled that voluntarily disclosing additional income after a search notice does not automatically justify a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Delhi quashes assessments under Section 153A due to “mechanical” Section 153D approval by the Additional CIT. The tribunal emphasized that this approval is a mandatory safeguard, not a mere formality, and its lack of application of mind renders assessments void.
The ITAT in Amritsar deleted a penalty on RPK Bricks after the department confirmed no pending supplies against a pre-registration advance payment.
The ITAT Pune has remitted the case of Mahesh Padmnabhrao Kashikar back to the CIT(A), allowing the individual a fresh chance to explain cash deposits in a joint bank account after previously failing to cooperate.
ITAT Chandigarh’s ruling in the CSJ Infrastructure tax case addresses the application of Section 43CA and the tax treatment of interest on land conversion fees.
Revenue argued that since assessee was an “eligible assessee” under section 144C(15), AO rightly passed the order and the final order was valid within the time limit of section 153(4). On appeal.
The ITAT Delhi has restored an appeal by Mehinder Sharma, previously dismissed by the NFAC for non-compliance, granting a final opportunity to present his case.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has remanded a penalty case for Co.op Credit Society, directing the AO to pass a new order only after the related quantum appeal is finalized.
