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...
Assessee was a partnership firm engaged in real estate development, had undertaken a housing project named Aakash Nidhi. It claimed deduction under section 80-IB(10) amounting to Rs. 2,51,07,390 on the entire profit of the project comprising Wings A to G.
Calcutta High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and passing of penalty order thereof in the name of a non-existent entity (i.e. dissolved HUF) is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Nagpur held that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act came into statute by Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 i.e., A.Y.2014-15. Accordingly, provisions cannot be made applicable to date of agreement before 01.04.2014.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act not sustained since three key ingredients i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of parties being proved. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Pune rules against AO’s profit estimation for Ambience Greendale, citing faulty comparison and no book rejection. ₹5.82 Cr addition deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that section 275(1A) of the Act empowers AO to impose or enhance or reduce or cancel penalty pursuant to the quantum appeal before higher appellate authority or court by giving effect to the quantum order.
ITAT Surat cancels penalty on Sahajanand Medical for a depreciation claim error, stating Section 271(1)(c) doesn’t apply to honest mistakes with full disclosure.
ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 271(1)(c), stating no deliberate concealment and distinguishing case from precedent in Mak Data ruling.
Supreme Court overturns penalty on PwC for a genuine error in income tax return, noting clear disclosure in tax audit report negated intent to conceal.
Since the business sales were accepted as genuine and only the purchases were routed through accommodation entries, only a part of the purchases needed adjustment to reflect possible inflation of expenses confirming the restriction of bogus purchase addition to 5% and when additions were made on an estimated basis, penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed.
