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...
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act issued without specifying the specific charge or limb i.e. without striking off the irrelevant limb is erroneous. Accordingly, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that since the Delhi High Court had restored the Industrial Park’s original Rs. 80 IA approval, the subsequent disallowance based on the quashed withdrawal was invalid. This affirms that a valid judicial ruling overrides the Central Government’s withdrawal order, securing the tax benefit for the taxpayer.
The ITAT deleted penalties under both Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A, ruling that merely making a bona fide but ultimately unsustainable tax claim under the India-UK DTAA does not attract a penalty. The Tribunal held that a difference in legal interpretation, especially in complex international tax issues, does not constitute concealment or misreporting of income.
The ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order that allowed a Section 54B capital gains exemption, because the CIT(A) copied a co-owners case ruling without independently verifying the factual evidence of agricultural use. The Tribunal reiterated that the burden to prove agricultural use rests on the assessee and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision based on factual findings.
The Tribunal deleted the ₹10 lakh penalty, ruling that an estimated addition based on the non-genuineness of purchases does not constitute concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reaffirms the Supreme Court principle that making an unsustainable claim does not automatically attract a penalty.
The ITAT deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that once the capital gains deductions (Section 54EC/54F) are substantially allowed in the quantum appeal, there’s no concealment of income. The Tribunal emphasized that filing a belated return within Section 139(4) does not automatically invalidate a genuine deduction claim, making the penalty unsustainable.
Tribunal held that goodwill arising from court-approved amalgamation is a depreciable intangible asset. AO & CIT(A)’s disallowance based on colourable device allegation was quashed.
The Tribunal accepted documentary evidence, including a director’s affidavit and Company Law Board (CLB) orders, as credible proof of sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The case was restored, ensuring the assessee gets an opportunity to contest the 68 and House Property income additions.
Saroj Devi Haldiya vs. ITO: The ITAT Jaipur overturned an Rs.75 lakh addition under S. 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal ruled the reassessment was invalid due to borrowed satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, mechanical approval, and a severe violation of natural justice (two-day notice).
The ITAT confirmed the penalty levy, ruling that a subsequent rectification order allowing carry-forward losses doesn’t affect the penalty base. Penalty is tied to the tax evaded on the additions confirmed by the appellate body ( crore), not the final assessed income.
