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...
Tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) deleted by ITAT for an assessee whose income was misreported by a consultant, citing voluntary tax payment before notice.
Assessee, i.e., the father of the minor, Mr. Yogesh Mafatlal Bhansali had originally filed his income tax return declaring a total income of ₹2,71,630, which was accepted after a limited scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).
Patna High Court held that there is no jurisdictional error since material/ documents based on which order of assessment has been passed is duly supplied to the assessee. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act erroneous as there is no over-valuation of shares over the fair market value of shares. Accordingly, addition made u/s. 56(2)(viib) deleted.
Assessee was a partnership firm engaged in real estate development, had undertaken a housing project named Aakash Nidhi. It claimed deduction under section 80-IB(10) amounting to Rs. 2,51,07,390 on the entire profit of the project comprising Wings A to G.
Calcutta High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and passing of penalty order thereof in the name of a non-existent entity (i.e. dissolved HUF) is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Nagpur held that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act came into statute by Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 i.e., A.Y.2014-15. Accordingly, provisions cannot be made applicable to date of agreement before 01.04.2014.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act not sustained since three key ingredients i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of parties being proved. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Pune rules against AO’s profit estimation for Ambience Greendale, citing faulty comparison and no book rejection. ₹5.82 Cr addition deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that section 275(1A) of the Act empowers AO to impose or enhance or reduce or cancel penalty pursuant to the quantum appeal before higher appellate authority or court by giving effect to the quantum order.
