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 Madras High Court ruled that income tax assessment and penalty proceedings cannot survive if the foundational Section 148 reassessment notice has been statutorily quashed.
ITAT Delhi set aside a Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Kissan Petro Oils Pvt Ltd, as all underlying additions were deleted by the ITAT and claims were based on a CA-certified audit report.
Pune ITAT deletes penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A for Sunil Chunilal Kumavat, citing non-specification of charges and reliance on Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh.
Jaipur ITAT deletes Section 270A penalty on Jaipur Telecom, ruling excess depreciation and TDS interest claims were bona fide errors, not misreporting.
Pune ITAT deletes Section 270A penalty on Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., ruling non-disclosure of adjusted IT refund interest was an inadvertent error, not under-reporting.
Madras High Court rules that mere disallowance of a deduction does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Significant to note that the assessment order was passed in the backdrop of information received from the French Government under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), indicating that assessee held bank accounts in HSBC Private Bank (Suisse), SA, Switzerland.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside income tax penalties on an MTNL employee, citing no additions in reassessment and the discretionary nature of penalty imposition under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A.
Madras High Court held that adjusting entire demand raised against refund due even during pendency of appeal is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, department directed to refund balance amount with interest.
Bombay High Court dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming that income tax penalty notices must clearly specify grounds of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
