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...
Madras High Court held that the question of jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to conduct proceedings under section 148A of the Income Tax Act is referred to Larger Bench. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act not justifiable as income is estimated on the basis of gross profit rate. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) set aside and appeal stands allowed.
The present appeal is preferred by the assessee. Notably, assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.54,39,870/- on account of alleged difference received from the contracts on the basis of entries in Form 26AS.
Delhi ITAT set aside penalties against Delhi Building & Others for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09, citing the Assessing Officer’s failure to specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
ITAT Surat deleted a Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Gunjan Agarwal, ruling that an addition based on estimated income does not automatically imply concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Pune quashes Section 271(1)(c) penalty on Intervalve Poonawalla for leave encashment disallowance, citing full disclosure and judicial precedents.
Delhi High Court held that the benefit of exclusion of time by virtue of Explanation (ix) of Section 153B of the Income Tax Act cannot be available here as reference made for information under Indo-Swiss DTAA was invalid. Accordingly, questions to law as framed are answered against the Revenue.
ITAT Mumbai remands Deepak Kumar Chaturvedi’s appeal, directing AO to verify exempt allowance disallowance due to Form 16 and 26AS mismatch caused by employer error.
TAT Ahmedabad rules income from recorded sales, already taxed, cannot be re-added as unexplained cash credit for Dipakkumar Vyas, citing double taxation.
The Petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to proceed further on the basis of the notice u/s. 148 of the Act of 1961 and drop the proceedings after considering the objection dated 21.02.2022. Petitioner also prayed for an interim stay of the impugned notice.
