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 Ahmedabad cancels penalty on I-Serve Systems as disallowance was based on estimation without proof of concealment or inaccurate income details.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is liable to be struck down for the failure on the part of the A.O. to put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed.
ITAT Surat rules penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not sustainable where income addition is based on estimation of bogus purchases.
ITAT Mumbai held that person who stayed out of India for the purpose of employment and/ or in search of employment will be considered as non-resident provided the stay out of India is more than 182 days. Thus, addition deleted as person is non-resident in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is permitted to set off unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to AY 1997-98 to 2001-02 against short term capital gains. Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the addition and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when income addition is based on estimation. Case details of Maruti Infrastructure Ltd. Vs DCIT explained.
ITAT Delhi restores Siddharth Sharma’s appeal for fresh hearing, setting aside ex-parte orders on unexplained deposits and penalty for AY 2012-13.
Gauhati High Court held that addition merely on the basis of retracted statement without any other relied upon evidence/ material is not sustainable since retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material. Hence, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure is liable to be deleted due to lack of corroborative and strong evidence. Accordingly, appeal of the department dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that entire addition of transaction in the hands of assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained investment not tenable since the same needs to be allocated between joint beneficial owners. Thus, matter restore back to file of AO.
