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...
Addition made under Section 69A based only on statements and a pen drive that were never tested or corroborated was not justified as such evidence could not be treated as credible unless the taxpayer was confronted with it and given an opportunity to respond.
Bombay High Court rules penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not applicable for a disclosed and bona fide deduction claim, even if disallowed. Mere incorrect legal claim isn’t concealment.
Gujarat High Court rules refunds under Vivad Se Vishwas Act are entitled to Section 244A interest for delayed payment, citing Supreme Court precedent.
ITAT Raipur held that ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) is liable to be set aside since there were justifiable reasons for the assessee trust of having remained unaware about the on-going appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). Accordingly, matter restored back for fresh consideration.
Delhi High Court held that that Section 68 of the Act as was in force prior to 01.04.2023, did not require the assessee to explain the source of the source of funds in case of unsecured loans. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted and appeal allowed.
Gujarat High Court rules tax recovery notices invalid for V.S. Texmills after NCLT approved resolution plan, reinforcing IBC’s binding effect on pre-existing claims.
ITAT Chandigarh condones delay and remands Mukesh Mittal’s penalty appeals back to CIT(A), citing a prior ITAT order that accepted similar delay in quantum appeals. Case to be re-decided on merits.
Rajkot ITAT condones 98-day appeal filing delay, citing taxpayer’s illiteracy and prior consultant’s negligence, prioritizing substantial justice.
ITAT Delhi held that software expense has not given any benefit of enduring nature and hence the same is not capital in nature. Accordingly, software expense allowed as revenue expenditure.
The ITAT Delhi has deleted a Rs. 96.62 lakh penalty imposed on Pawan Kumar Gupta, ruling that Section 271(1)(c) is not applicable to additions based on estimated income.
