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...
ITAT Surat cancels penalty on Sahajanand Medical for a depreciation claim error, stating Section 271(1)(c) doesn’t apply to honest mistakes with full disclosure.
ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 271(1)(c), stating no deliberate concealment and distinguishing case from precedent in Mak Data ruling.
Supreme Court overturns penalty on PwC for a genuine error in income tax return, noting clear disclosure in tax audit report negated intent to conceal.
Since the business sales were accepted as genuine and only the purchases were routed through accommodation entries, only a part of the purchases needed adjustment to reflect possible inflation of expenses confirming the restriction of bogus purchase addition to 5% and when additions were made on an estimated basis, penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed.
ITAT Delhi rules on penalty imposition for Vodafone West Ltd, concerning a debatable issue of interest on license fees.
ITAT Pune rules no penalty under section 271(1)(c) when a debatable legal issue exists, in the case of DCIT vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav.
Assessee-a government-owned entity, had initially filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17, declaring nil income after setting off carried-forward losses and reported book profits of Rs. 26.90 crore under the MAT provisions of Section 115JB.
ITAT Delhi held that concealment of income via bogus share capital transaction duly attracts levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed and penalty upheld.
This is a peculiar case wherein assessee has declared as a single owner and sold the property, however purchased two properties and registered one property in the name of his mother on the basis of inheritance.
The petitioner filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 24 November 2014 which was subsequently revised on two occasions namely on 17 March 2016 and 25 March 2016 which was further modified on 29 November 2016.
