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...
Madras High Court rules that mere disallowance of a deduction does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Significant to note that the assessment order was passed in the backdrop of information received from the French Government under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), indicating that assessee held bank accounts in HSBC Private Bank (Suisse), SA, Switzerland.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside income tax penalties on an MTNL employee, citing no additions in reassessment and the discretionary nature of penalty imposition under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A.
Madras High Court held that adjusting entire demand raised against refund due even during pendency of appeal is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, department directed to refund balance amount with interest.
Bombay High Court dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming that income tax penalty notices must clearly specify grounds of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Calcutta High Court hears appeal on the validity of tax penalties under Section 271(1)(c), specifically if show-cause notices lacking specific grounds are invalid. The case involves the Thakur Prasad Sao Group.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not to be levied as Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c), which specifically governs penalty in transfer pricing cases, was neither invoked during the initiation nor discussed while levying the penalty and neither TPO nor CIT(A) ever held that the ALP was computed outside the statutory provisions, or that the study report lacked diligence or was not prepared in good faith.
ITAT Delhi considers penalty for alleged inaccurate income particulars concerning a Section 54F exemption claim, with conflicting views on concealment versus incorrect claim.
ITAT Pune cancels Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Vikas Jayram Bhukan, citing a defective notice that failed to specify the charge, referencing Bombay High Court precedents.
ITAT Delhi held penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unsustainable as 54F exemption failed due to builder delay, not taxpayer’s fault. Full disclosure helped avoid penalty.
