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...
Gujarat High Court rules tax recovery notices invalid for V.S. Texmills after NCLT approved resolution plan, reinforcing IBC’s binding effect on pre-existing claims.
ITAT Chandigarh condones delay and remands Mukesh Mittal’s penalty appeals back to CIT(A), citing a prior ITAT order that accepted similar delay in quantum appeals. Case to be re-decided on merits.
Rajkot ITAT condones 98-day appeal filing delay, citing taxpayer’s illiteracy and prior consultant’s negligence, prioritizing substantial justice.
ITAT Delhi held that software expense has not given any benefit of enduring nature and hence the same is not capital in nature. Accordingly, software expense allowed as revenue expenditure.
The ITAT Delhi has deleted a Rs. 96.62 lakh penalty imposed on Pawan Kumar Gupta, ruling that Section 271(1)(c) is not applicable to additions based on estimated income.
The ITAT Lucknow has restored the penalty case of UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd. to the Assessing Officer, aligning with the Allahabad High Court’s directive to await quantum appeal outcomes.
Delhi HC ruled in Sahara India Life Insurance Co. case that Section 271(1)(c) penalty is invalid if notice fails to specify whether it pertains to income concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The Gujarat High Court invalidated a tax reopening notice against Hemanshu Ramniklal Shah, ruling it was based on a “change of opinion” rather than new material, after the original assessment was already scrutinized.
ITAT Delhi overturns Rs. 74 lakh penalty on Singh Consultancy. Notice ambiguity in Section 271(1)(c) proceedings deemed fatal, reinforcing clarity in tax charges.
Understand why an income-tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the charge isn’t specified as concealment or inaccurate particulars. Learn legal precedents and appeal strategies.
