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...
Calcutta High Court hears appeal on the validity of tax penalties under Section 271(1)(c), specifically if show-cause notices lacking specific grounds are invalid. The case involves the Thakur Prasad Sao Group.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not to be levied as Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c), which specifically governs penalty in transfer pricing cases, was neither invoked during the initiation nor discussed while levying the penalty and neither TPO nor CIT(A) ever held that the ALP was computed outside the statutory provisions, or that the study report lacked diligence or was not prepared in good faith.
ITAT Delhi considers penalty for alleged inaccurate income particulars concerning a Section 54F exemption claim, with conflicting views on concealment versus incorrect claim.
ITAT Pune cancels Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Vikas Jayram Bhukan, citing a defective notice that failed to specify the charge, referencing Bombay High Court precedents.
ITAT Delhi held penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unsustainable as 54F exemption failed due to builder delay, not taxpayer’s fault. Full disclosure helped avoid penalty.
ITAT Bangalore rules that merely disallowing advances written off and interest claims does not warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), reinforcing that an honest claim, even if rejected, is not an inaccurate particular of income.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained as assessee disclosed the source of credits. It is also held that assessee has also disclosed source of source and hence addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that apportionment of license fees as 10% towards recorded events and 90% towards live coverage instead of 5% and 95% as claimed by sports broadcasters. Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per previous provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act applicable till 31st March 2013, the assessee was not required to explain the source of money provided by the creditors.
ITAT Mumbai dismisses Revenue’s appeal against Thirumalai Marketing & Investments Ltd., upholding the assessee’s proof of the lender’s identity and creditworthiness for a Rs. 5 crore loan.
