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 Visakhapatnam sets aside penalty on Malla Appalaraju under Section 271(1)(c) due to a defective notice, ruling it void ab initio.
ITAT Visakhapatnam ruled no penalty for voluntary income disclosure post-survey, rejecting AO’s concealment claims.
It was held that in the original assessment under Section 143(1), the issue related to the deed of purchase of land was not looked into as the same was not reported in the assessee’s income before the Revenue.
ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on estimated GP additions for alleged bogus purchases in Om Sai Traders case for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12.
Ahmedabad ITAT remands Rs. 1 crore addition based on partner’s statement, citing lack of corroborating evidence, orders fresh CIT(A) review.
ITAT Chennai rules that debatable tax claims made in good faith do not warrant penalties under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. Read the case details.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justifiable since no plausible explanation provided for amount of understated/ suppressed net profit. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and penalty upheld.
ITAT Pune rules in Ramchandra Jadhavrao vs. ACIT that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) applies if income is declared in return post-survey.
ITAT Mumbai rules that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied on ad-hoc estimated income, dismissing Revenue’s appeal in ITO vs. Ashok Industrial Corporation.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment is based on change of opinion since exact entry which was already scrutinised and accepted by department during scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, re-opening u/s. 148 is liable to be quashed.
