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 dismissed Revenue’s appeal, upholding deletion of a Rs. 16 lakh penalty against Micro Plantea Limited due to a lack of incriminating material in a search assessment.
ITAT Mumbai held that trade receivable shown as net of provision for doubtful debts would not be hit by section 115JB(i) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition of provision of bad and doubtful debts to book profits computed u/s. 115JB not sustained.
A summary of the ITAT Delhi ruling on cross-appeals involving International Tractor Ltd. covering key tax issues on depreciation, R&D, and other business deductions.
Income tax penalty proceedings initiated against the company under Section271(1)(c) was quashed as no sufficient time was given for reply and a personal hearing rendered the proceedings procedurally unfair and legally unsustainable.
The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The court ruled that the penalty notice was invalid because it failed to specify whether the penalty was for ‘concealment of income’ or ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’.
The ITAT has set aside a penalty order against a taxpayer, Murmu Pankaj Kumar, ruling it was premature as the core quantum appeal was still pending before the CIT(A).
The Delhi ITAT has quashed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that an “omnibus” no-tice that failed to specify the charge against the taxpayer was invalid and showed non-application of mind.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), finding that an assessee’s retracted admission during a search was not supported by incriminating material.
The ITAT Delhi has ruled that no penalty can be sustained on estimated income, deleting the penalty levied on an individual for discrepancies found in his Form 26AS.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that a penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. The case of Khodiyar Impex vs. ITO clarified that a 3% disallowance on alleged bogus purchases doesn’t constitute concealment of income.
