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...
The ITAT has set aside a penalty order against a taxpayer, Murmu Pankaj Kumar, ruling it was premature as the core quantum appeal was still pending before the CIT(A).
The Delhi ITAT has quashed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that an “omnibus” no-tice that failed to specify the charge against the taxpayer was invalid and showed non-application of mind.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), finding that an assessee’s retracted admission during a search was not supported by incriminating material.
The ITAT Delhi has ruled that no penalty can be sustained on estimated income, deleting the penalty levied on an individual for discrepancies found in his Form 26AS.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that a penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. The case of Khodiyar Impex vs. ITO clarified that a 3% disallowance on alleged bogus purchases doesn’t constitute concealment of income.
ITAT Ahmedabad has remanded a tax reassessment and penalty case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, imposing a cost on the assessee for non-compliance.
ITAT Pune held that provisions of section 43CA of the Income Tax Act doesn’t apply when the market value (Govt. value) is more than the agreed value as on the date of booking and market value has gone up during long gap between the date of booking and the date of sale.
ITAT Surat held that ex-parte order of CIT(A) set aside and restored back for fresh adjudication subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000 on account of non-cooperation/ non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
The ITAT Delhi has deleted a penalty imposed by the CIT(A), ruling that the CIT(A) did not have the jurisdiction to change the nature of a penalty from Section 271AAB to 271(1)(c).
The Mumbai ITAT quashed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) against Ideal Energy Projects, citing that merely claiming a deduction is not furnishing inaccurate particulars.
