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 Ahmedabad has remanded a tax reassessment and penalty case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, imposing a cost on the assessee for non-compliance.
ITAT Pune held that provisions of section 43CA of the Income Tax Act doesn’t apply when the market value (Govt. value) is more than the agreed value as on the date of booking and market value has gone up during long gap between the date of booking and the date of sale.
ITAT Surat held that ex-parte order of CIT(A) set aside and restored back for fresh adjudication subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000 on account of non-cooperation/ non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
The ITAT Delhi has deleted a penalty imposed by the CIT(A), ruling that the CIT(A) did not have the jurisdiction to change the nature of a penalty from Section 271AAB to 271(1)(c).
The Mumbai ITAT quashed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) against Ideal Energy Projects, citing that merely claiming a deduction is not furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Delhi ITAT has ruled that a penalty cannot be imposed when income is based on estimation. It deleted penalties on a taxpayer where cash deposits were assessed as estimated business profits, not unexplained income.
The Calcutta High Court invalidates a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) because the show-cause notice failed to specify whether the charge was for concealing or furnishing inaccurate income particulars.
ITAT Jaipur held that merely the claim of the assessee was not entertained it cannot be a reason automatically to levy the penalty for misreporting or under reporting of the income. Accordingly, levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act set aside.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as deceased alone could have explained the source of the deposits, and since he had died before the initiation of penalty proceedings, it was not reasonable to expect the legal heir to establish his innocence.
Calcutta High Court dismisses PCIT appeal, ruling penalty notice under Income Tax Act invalid due to failure to specify contravention, citing judicial precedents.
