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...
Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and precedents for abeyance to avoid premature penalties.
ITAT Allahabad held that renting out of property on day-to-day basis and providing certain facilities to those who would be taking premises on rent seems to be an organized activity of composite nature. Hence, income from the same is treated as business income.
ITAT Jaipur sets aside penalty under Section 271(1)(c) against Pradeep Garg, citing defective notice and lack of independent evidence from the department.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposited in the bank account during demonetization period deleted since source of cash deposit duly explained.
The Rajasthan High Court upheld that penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act require specific, recorded satisfaction by the AO for the correct section, not general initiation.
ITAT Jaipur held that reopening under section 148 r.w.s. 148A is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed in as much as reopening was merely on the basis of change of opinion. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed and reopening quashed.
Delhi High Court dismisses Revenue appeal, upholding penalty cancellation on Genpact Services LLC over debated expense classification and vague penalty notice.
Delhi High Court held that issuance of notice for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb under which the penalty was proposed to be levied is bad-in-law. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi cancels penalties against G.D. Goenka Pvt. Ltd. ruling that underlying assessments were invalid due to defective Section 153D approval following a search.
ITAT Ahmedabad directs AO to re-examine penalty u/s 271(1)(c) against Krupal Patel after setting aside the original ex parte assessment order.
