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 Delhi held that advertisement and distribution revenue earned by Discovery Asia Inc. is taxable as per Mutual Agreement Resolution (MAP) as decided by competent authority of India & USA. Accordingly, appeal allowed partially.
ITAT Agra remands ₹34,803 penalty case under Section 271(1)(c) to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after setting aside quantum additions for reassessment.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands Amod Steel case after non-appearance due to communication sent to a former accountant’s email, impacting the appeal process.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismisses penalty for disallowance of deduction under section 80IA(4), ruling in favor of the assessee as a developer.
ITAT Mumbai rules that penalty cannot be maintained after assessment order is quashed, restoring a case to CIT(A) for fresh hearing.
ITAT Agra held that matter of levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act restored back to file of AO since Tribunal restored matter of addition towards unexplained cash deposit for quantification.
ITAT Ahmedabad affirms CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹12.92 crore tax addition under Section 40A(3), relying on past gross profit rates and valid agricultural purchases.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act merely based on retracted statement cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that notice issued u/s. 274 without specifying ground for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) i.e. whether penalty is imposed for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is not justifiable.
ITAT Mumbai quashes penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for three assessees due to defective notices and debatable issues in light of Bombay High Court precedents.
