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...
Assessee is a credit cooperative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members for A.Y. 2014 – 15, filed its return of income after claiming deduction u/s. 80 P (2) (a) of the income tax act.
ITAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act untenable without concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Accordingly, penalty deleted.
ITAT Delhi quashes penalty imposed on Sudesh Gupta under Section 271(1)(c) as omnibus notice without specifying the charge was invalid
The appellant are that the assessee being a public charitable Trust engaged in running an educational institution in the name of Batanagar Institute of Engineering, management and Science.
AO observed that there was substantial undisclosed income, as the assessee admitted to unaccounted business income amounting to Rs.3,50,04,000/- during the search proceedings but did not file a return for the assessment year 2014-15.
Karnataka High Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer since non-response to notice issued under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act by the petitioner was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.
Delhi High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not valid. Accordingly, penalty set aside.
The assessee has not filed any return of income. As per the information, the reasons were recorded and subsequently the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any reply.
ITAT Nagpur held that when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted by or against the corporate debtor. Thus, IBC Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including Income Tax Act.
ITAT Hyderabad held that entire cash deposits added towards unexplained money unjustified since benefit of telescoping of withdrawals against the subsequent deposits should be given. Accordingly, matter remanded back.
