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...
In a ruling for Sureshkumar Prabhulal Thakkar, the ITAT Ahmedabad has cancelled a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), stating that an Assessing Officer cannot impose a penalty simply because an expense claim is disallowed.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a penalty cannot be imposed on estimated additions from bogus purchases. Tribunal affirmed that without cogent evidence, estimated profits don’t warrant a penalty.
Bombay High Court confirms tax penalties cannot be imposed solely on additions made through ad hoc estimations, dismissing a revenue appeal against Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd.
PCIT Vs Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court in PCIT vs Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd. examined the validity of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of alleged bogus purchases claimed by the assessee. The appeal arose from an order dated 31 July 2020 […]
Bombay High Court upheld CIT(A) and ITAT orders deleting penalty of ₹2.75 lakh, holding that ad-hoc estimation of profit from alleged hawala purchases does not amount to concealment of income.
The Raipur ITAT remanded the Omax Minerals tax case back to CIT(A) after finding that the company was denied a fair opportunity to be heard in a penalty proceeding. The ruling cites procedural irregularities.
The ITAT Kolkata quashed a penalty on a taxpayer, ruling that a one-time settlement from an employer was a capital receipt. The court held that no concealment of income occurred as the amount was disclosed in the tax return.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Cochin has ruled that voluntarily disclosing additional income after a search notice does not automatically justify a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Delhi quashes assessments under Section 153A due to “mechanical” Section 153D approval by the Additional CIT. The tribunal emphasized that this approval is a mandatory safeguard, not a mere formality, and its lack of application of mind renders assessments void.
The ITAT in Amritsar deleted a penalty on RPK Bricks after the department confirmed no pending supplies against a pre-registration advance payment.
