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 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 : The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscio...
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 Pune rules no penalty under section 271(1)(c) when a debatable legal issue exists, in the case of DCIT vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav.
Assessee-a government-owned entity, had initially filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17, declaring nil income after setting off carried-forward losses and reported book profits of Rs. 26.90 crore under the MAT provisions of Section 115JB.
ITAT Delhi held that concealment of income via bogus share capital transaction duly attracts levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed and penalty upheld.
This is a peculiar case wherein assessee has declared as a single owner and sold the property, however purchased two properties and registered one property in the name of his mother on the basis of inheritance.
The petitioner filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 24 November 2014 which was subsequently revised on two occasions namely on 17 March 2016 and 25 March 2016 which was further modified on 29 November 2016.
ITAT Rajkot cancels penalty on Anil Odedara, ruling income was estimated and not grounds for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a penalty, citing a defective notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c), following the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh.
ITAT Mumbai cancels penalty on Smita Ashok Thakkar citing invalid notice under Section 271(1)(c) due to non-striking of relevant limb in penalty notice.
ITAT Mumbai cancels Section 271(1)(c) penalties on Lyka Labs Ltd for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 due to procedural defect in the penalty notices.
ITAT Surat rules no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) if income is assessed on estimate. Penalty deleted as disallowances were based on turnover estimation.
