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...
The ITAT Delhi held that merely because additions were sustained in quantum proceedings, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot automatically follow. The Revenue must independently prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Hyderabad refused to condone 632-day delay, dismissing appeal as time-barred, but quashed Section 271(1)(c) penalty for lack of recorded satisfaction in assessment order.
The Court held that failure to comply with payment conditions under the 2020 Scheme automatically revived withdrawn revision petitions. This made the assessee eligible under the 2024 DTVSV Scheme.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹6.15 lakh penny stock LTCG addition, holding investigation report and abnormal price rise insufficient without direct evidence linking assessee to accommodation entries.
ITAT Mumbai observed that additions based solely on estimation do not establish concealment of income. Consequently, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted for both assessment years.
he Tribunal emphasized that assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct and strict proof of concealment is required. Estimated additions alone cannot justify penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where tax is ultimately levied under Section 115JB. Additions under normal provisions did not result in tax evasion.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase additions are made purely on an estimated basis. Estimated profit disallowances do not prove concealment without concrete evidence.
The Tribunal clarified that dismissal of an SLP does not amount to declaration of law under Article 141. It distinguished prior rulings and held that defective penalty notices invalidate the levy.
It was ruled that approval under Section 151 granted mechanically, with contradictory stands taken by the authority, vitiates the reopening. The reassessment was set aside for lack of proper application of mind.
