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 Raipur held that due to non-response for assessee if addition of income is done as Form 26AS then obviously TDS credit available in Form 26AS needs also to be allowed. Thus, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 270A is not leviable since neither the assessment order nor the notice issued u/sec.274 r.w.s.270A the Assessing Officer has specified the limb under which the case of the assessee falls.
ITAT Jaipur quashes penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act in Anil Sharma vs. ITO due to absent recorded satisfaction.
ITAT Delhi held that Transfer Pricing Adjustment in respect of transaction of payment of royalty is set aside and Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] is directed to accept the parameters of determination of compensation as accepted in Advance Pricing Agreement [APA].
ITAT Ahmedabad allows appeal despite 1607-day delay citing medical hardship. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) questioned over income assessment.
ITAT Ahmedabad cancels penalty on I-Serve Systems as disallowance was based on estimation without proof of concealment or inaccurate income details.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is liable to be struck down for the failure on the part of the A.O. to put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed.
ITAT Surat rules penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not sustainable where income addition is based on estimation of bogus purchases.
ITAT Mumbai held that person who stayed out of India for the purpose of employment and/ or in search of employment will be considered as non-resident provided the stay out of India is more than 182 days. Thus, addition deleted as person is non-resident in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is permitted to set off unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to AY 1997-98 to 2001-02 against short term capital gains. Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the addition and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
