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...
Judicial precedent from Karnataka HC confirms that Assessing Officer must provide not less than seven days to an assessee to respond to a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b). Failure to comply renders the notice and all subsequent reassessment steps, including the order and penalty notice, invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that sales made to Jyoti Products were genuine, supported by ledgers and invoices. The 25% disallowance by the AO under Section 37 was deleted, as Section 37 applies only to business expenditure, not sales transactions.
The ITAT Hyderabad ruled that an appeal cannot be dismissed merely because the assessment was framed under an old PAN and the appeal filed under a new, active PAN. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case to the AO to verify the source of cash deposits of Rs. 85.31 lakh, allowing the assessee to prove the amounts were already accounted for as business receipts.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying quantum addition has been remanded for fresh adjudication. The penalty order was restored to the CIT(A) to be decided only after the quantum appeal is finalized.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of a major protective tax addition against a firm, ruling it would result in double taxation. Evidence proved the corresponding income, found on seized loose papers, was personal to a partner and had already been declared and taxed in the partner’s individual return.
The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order in Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah Vs ACIT(OSD), restoring the addition dispute of ₹10,00,100 under Section 69A for fresh review.
ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal in Samir N. Shah Vs ITO, holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment or inaccurate particulars cannot be levied when the underlying income addition is made solely by estimating a gross profit rate on alleged bogus purchases, in the absence of concrete evidence like seized material or cash transactions.
ITAT Delhi rules in Mahabir vs ITO that the 1994 CBDT notification defines agricultural land limits for capital gains tax. Subsequent municipal expansions are irrelevant. Land 6km from Sohna Municipality was deemed non-taxable.
The ITAT ruled that the Assessing Officer’s mechanical application of Rule 8D for Section 14A disallowance was invalid without recording proper satisfaction. The Tribunal directed that only net interest (interest paid less interest earned) and only those investments that yielded exempt income should be considered for re-computation, upholding the assessee’s legal objections.
The Delhi High Court, in CIT v. Corteva Agriscience Pvt. Ltd., dismissed the Revenues appeals, confirming that penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
