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 Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, an...
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 : 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...
The Rajasthan High Court upheld that penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act require specific, recorded satisfaction by the AO for the correct section, not general initiation.
ITAT Jaipur held that reopening under section 148 r.w.s. 148A is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed in as much as reopening was merely on the basis of change of opinion. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed and reopening quashed.
Delhi High Court dismisses Revenue appeal, upholding penalty cancellation on Genpact Services LLC over debated expense classification and vague penalty notice.
Delhi High Court held that issuance of notice for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb under which the penalty was proposed to be levied is bad-in-law. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi cancels penalties against G.D. Goenka Pvt. Ltd. ruling that underlying assessments were invalid due to defective Section 153D approval following a search.
ITAT Ahmedabad directs AO to re-examine penalty u/s 271(1)(c) against Krupal Patel after setting aside the original ex parte assessment order.
Tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) deleted by ITAT for an assessee whose income was misreported by a consultant, citing voluntary tax payment before notice.
Assessee, i.e., the father of the minor, Mr. Yogesh Mafatlal Bhansali had originally filed his income tax return declaring a total income of ₹2,71,630, which was accepted after a limited scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).
Patna High Court held that there is no jurisdictional error since material/ documents based on which order of assessment has been passed is duly supplied to the assessee. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act erroneous as there is no over-valuation of shares over the fair market value of shares. Accordingly, addition made u/s. 56(2)(viib) deleted.
