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 Pune quashes Section 271(1)(c) penalty on Intervalve Poonawalla for leave encashment disallowance, citing full disclosure and judicial precedents.
Delhi High Court held that the benefit of exclusion of time by virtue of Explanation (ix) of Section 153B of the Income Tax Act cannot be available here as reference made for information under Indo-Swiss DTAA was invalid. Accordingly, questions to law as framed are answered against the Revenue.
ITAT Mumbai remands Deepak Kumar Chaturvedi’s appeal, directing AO to verify exempt allowance disallowance due to Form 16 and 26AS mismatch caused by employer error.
TAT Ahmedabad rules income from recorded sales, already taxed, cannot be re-added as unexplained cash credit for Dipakkumar Vyas, citing double taxation.
The Petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to proceed further on the basis of the notice u/s. 148 of the Act of 1961 and drop the proceedings after considering the objection dated 21.02.2022. Petitioner also prayed for an interim stay of the impugned notice.
Addition made under Section 69A based only on statements and a pen drive that were never tested or corroborated was not justified as such evidence could not be treated as credible unless the taxpayer was confronted with it and given an opportunity to respond.
Bombay High Court rules penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not applicable for a disclosed and bona fide deduction claim, even if disallowed. Mere incorrect legal claim isn’t concealment.
Gujarat High Court rules refunds under Vivad Se Vishwas Act are entitled to Section 244A interest for delayed payment, citing Supreme Court precedent.
ITAT Raipur held that ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) is liable to be set aside since there were justifiable reasons for the assessee trust of having remained unaware about the on-going appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). Accordingly, matter restored back for fresh consideration.
Delhi High Court held that that Section 68 of the Act as was in force prior to 01.04.2023, did not require the assessee to explain the source of the source of funds in case of unsecured loans. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted and appeal allowed.
