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 Chennai rules that debatable tax claims made in good faith do not warrant penalties under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. Read the case details.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justifiable since no plausible explanation provided for amount of understated/ suppressed net profit. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and penalty upheld.
ITAT Pune rules in Ramchandra Jadhavrao vs. ACIT that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) applies if income is declared in return post-survey.
ITAT Mumbai rules that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied on ad-hoc estimated income, dismissing Revenue’s appeal in ITO vs. Ashok Industrial Corporation.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment is based on change of opinion since exact entry which was already scrutinised and accepted by department during scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, re-opening u/s. 148 is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai ruled on Dev Engineers Vs DCIT, deleting penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAB. Additions were based on estimation, lacking evidence of concealment.
ITAT, by going through established precedents, held that AO had not recorded any dissatisfaction with assessee’s voluntary disallowance, nor had he provided any basis for invoking Rule 8D
ITAT Pune restores Mauli Nagari’s tax case to CIT(A)-NFAC due to non-compliance issues. Read about penalties, unexplained cash deposits & reassessment.
ITAT Chandigarh rules against penalty on estimated income in AKM Resorts vs ACIT, reinforcing that additions based on estimation don’t imply income concealment.
ITAT Agra restores penalty appeal in Devendra Kumar Dubey Vs ITO for reassessment by CIT(A). Case highlights concealment penalty of ₹34,803 under Section 271(1)(c).
