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 Tribunal ruled that margins agreed under a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement may be used for non-covered AEs when transactions are functionally similar. The decision emphasized consistency and the lack of separate benchmarking by the TPO.
ITAT Surat restored reassessment appeals to the CIT(A) after observing that the assessee should receive one final opportunity to present evidence. The Tribunal imposed costs due to partial compliance before the appellate authority.
The Telangana High Court set aside a penalty under Section 271D after finding that the assessment order contained no recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. The Court held that Supreme Court precedent on mandatory satisfaction was binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot pass two reassessment orders for the same assessment year, same transaction, and same addition. The first reassessment proceedings were held legally unsustainable.
The ITAT Rajkot held that mere disallowance of expenditure during assessment proceedings does not automatically justify penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.
ITAT Rajkot held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approving authority merely stated Yes, I am satisfied without independent application of mind. The Tribunal treated Section 151 approval as a mandatory procedural safeguard.
The ITAT ruled that accepted sales necessarily imply corresponding purchases, even if sourced through the grey market. The addition was therefore restricted to estimated profit instead of the full purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly aggregated actual property value and stamp duty valuation of the same transaction to invoke extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b). The reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 was declared time-barred and without jurisdiction.
The Mumbai ITAT held that no separate addition for alleged bogus purchases can be made where the assessee has already disclosed a higher gross profit on disputed transactions. The Tribunal relied on Bombay High Court rulings limiting additions only to differential GP.
The ITAT ruled that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record satisfaction in assessment or related proceedings. Since no assessment proceedings existed in the case, the penalty was held unsustainable in law.
