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 ruled that cash deposits during demonetization, already reflected in the assessee’s books, cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. Entire Rs.53.51 lakh addition was deleted, ensuring no double taxation.
The ITAT Raipur set aside penalties under Section 271(1)(c) levied on Sai Baba Sansthan for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14, remanding the matter to the NFAC. The Tribunal held that the penalty’s survival is contingent upon the NFAC upholding the quantum additions on a de novo adjudication, relying on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents.
Jaipur ITAT dismisses Revenue’s appeals in Nath Corporation, Royal Jewellers, and Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal cases, deleting Rs. 3.3 crore in penalties.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeals of KPC Medical College And Hospital, setting aside penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAA, ruling that the show cause notices were invalid for failing to specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars).
ITAT Delhi quashes Rs.8.16 crore addition on share capital and commission, emphasizing that mere suspicion without evidence cannot justify tax additions. Investor genuineness and banking records were upheld.
ITAT Mumbai held that additional evidence demonstrating that no tax advantage accrued to assessee owing to continuous losses needs verification. Accordingly, matter of imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) remanded back.
ITAT Kolkata quashes S. 271(1)(c) penalty against Baidya Nath Dey (AY 2011-12). Penalty notice invalid as the AO failed to strike off the irrelevant limb, a defect confirmed by the Calcutta High Court.
ITAT Kolkata deletes the Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Asit Kumar Dutta. The Tribunal ruled that an incorrect deduction claimed by mistake, with full disclosure, does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld reopening of assessment for undisclosed high-value property sale, but remanded the Rs. 2.01 crore capital gain for fresh valuation due to flawed valuation reports.
Explore the ITAT Cochin’s decision in the Chundayil Kalam Girijadevi vs. ITO case, which sets a precedent that a tax penalty cannot be levied for an honest mistake in claiming a higher gratuity exemption.
