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 dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-prosecution and confirmed the order of the AO as no submissions were made on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, matter restored to CIT(A).
ITAT Surat held that delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) since the assessee was displaced from his office due to attachment of office on account of some purported fraud committed by him is sufficient cause.
Addition of Rs.10 Crore under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as Revenue failed to specify whether the addition was being made alleging concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Thus, penalty is not warranted on issues where a substantial question of law exists, indicating that the matter is not free from doubt. Accordingly, we quash the penalty order under section 271(1) (c) of the Act.
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 271(1)(c)/ 271AAB of the Income Tax Act imposable even in case of voluntary disclosure or declaration or surrender per se of income. Accordingly, appeal filed by revenue allowed.
Delhi High Court held that Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method when reseller imports goods from its Associated Enterprise (AE) and the goods are sold in the same condition without any value addition.
As a result, assessee was required to deduct TDS on payments made to Bemo. AO invoked Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax on Rs. 12,69,79,006, disallowing the deduction.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition of all the cash deposits as unexplained income without giving credit for the withdrawal not justified. Accordingly, matter restored back to the file of AO for de novo consideration.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted disallowance of sales promotion expenditure since disallowance constitutes small percentage as compared to turnover of the assessee and also there is no allegation of expenditure incurred in cash.
A proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act was initiated against the assessee as during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act it was seen that in the ABN Amro Bank account of the assessee a cash amounting to Rs. 20 Lakh was deposited.
