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 Bangalore rules that merely disallowing advances written off and interest claims does not warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), reinforcing that an honest claim, even if rejected, is not an inaccurate particular of income.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained as assessee disclosed the source of credits. It is also held that assessee has also disclosed source of source and hence addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that apportionment of license fees as 10% towards recorded events and 90% towards live coverage instead of 5% and 95% as claimed by sports broadcasters. Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per previous provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act applicable till 31st March 2013, the assessee was not required to explain the source of money provided by the creditors.
ITAT Mumbai dismisses Revenue’s appeal against Thirumalai Marketing & Investments Ltd., upholding the assessee’s proof of the lender’s identity and creditworthiness for a Rs. 5 crore loan.
Madras High Court held that the question of jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to conduct proceedings under section 148A of the Income Tax Act is referred to Larger Bench. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act not justifiable as income is estimated on the basis of gross profit rate. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) set aside and appeal stands allowed.
The present appeal is preferred by the assessee. Notably, assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.54,39,870/- on account of alleged difference received from the contracts on the basis of entries in Form 26AS.
Delhi ITAT set aside penalties against Delhi Building & Others for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09, citing the Assessing Officer’s failure to specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
ITAT Surat deleted a Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Gunjan Agarwal, ruling that an addition based on estimated income does not automatically imply concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
