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...
Raj Kumar Agarwal HUF’s appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) dismissed as withdrawn under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
ITAT Allahabad quashes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and directs AO to reconsider quantum addition in Chandra Bali Singh’s case.
ITAT Kolkata upholds disallowance of short-term capital loss adjustment for previous AY but deletes penalty due to lack of evidence of intentional wrongdoing.
Assessment proceedings against the petitioner were started and completed on 23.01.2018 and on the same day penalty proceedings were initiated. Appeal against the assessment order got dismissed on 14.11.2022.
ITAT Jaipur held that the litigant cannot be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the consultant or Advocate and disown himself or herself at any time to seek relief for condonation of delay. Accordingly, cost imposed for procedural delay.
It was claimed that the notice under Section 148 was time-barred, reasons recorded under Section 147 were vague, and proper show-cause notices were not issued, violating Section 144B.
In the abovementioned case ITAT remanded the matter to CIT (A) after considering the fact that no proper opportunity was availed by assessee before CIT (A) and revenue has no objection in remanding the matter.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands Ashadeep Industries vs. ITO for rehearing, emphasizing procedural fairness and opportunity to be heard under natural justice principles.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that cost of improvement to make a house livable qualifies for capital gains deduction. Penalty on disallowed expenses also canceled.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT Delhi vitiated penalty proceedings after examining that non mentioning of charge for which penalty is to be levied makes the notice as much defective as non striking of irrelevant clauses in the notice.
