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 Delhi deleted penalties against Sahara India Commercial, citing a defective “omnibus” notice and a time-barred, invalid reassessment based on “borrowed satisfaction.”
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of professional fees merely for the reason that notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act remained unserved is not justifiable since assessee has placed various evidences on record. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that mere filing of return in response to notice u/s. 148 does not ipso facto justify the invocation of section 270A(2)(b), unless there is a demonstrable act of under-reporting in substance. Thus, penalty deleted as failure to furnish return u/s. 139(1) doesn’t constitute under-reporting.
ITAT Raipur held that addition made on account of unexplained out of books cash transaction merely on the basis of certain information without cogent evidence or plausible reasoning has not substance to survive in eye of law. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Bangalore confirms penalty deletion under Section 271(1)(c) against Manipal Hospitals, ruling that a mere disallowance of a claim, like interest expenditure reclassification, does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Madras High Court ruled that income tax assessment and penalty proceedings cannot survive if the foundational Section 148 reassessment notice has been statutorily quashed.
ITAT Delhi set aside a Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Kissan Petro Oils Pvt Ltd, as all underlying additions were deleted by the ITAT and claims were based on a CA-certified audit report.
Pune ITAT deletes penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A for Sunil Chunilal Kumavat, citing non-specification of charges and reliance on Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh.
Jaipur ITAT deletes Section 270A penalty on Jaipur Telecom, ruling excess depreciation and TDS interest claims were bona fide errors, not misreporting.
Pune ITAT deletes Section 270A penalty on Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., ruling non-disclosure of adjusted IT refund interest was an inadvertent error, not under-reporting.
