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 had filed his income tax return on in which he declared a total income of Rs. 35,00,611, accepted under Section 143(1). A subsequent search and seizure operation on Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Co. brought assessee’s finances under scrutiny, as he was allegedly linked to the company.
Upon further examination of the assessee’s bank statements, the Assessing Officer observed that significant funds were being transferred in and out to various parties.
The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of retail milk selling. For the relevant AY 2012-13, the assessee did not originally file a return of income, as the total income was below the basic exemption limit under the Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act not justified since the amount introduced by way of unsecured loans proved to be genuine. Accordingly, disallowance of interest deleted.
ITAT Lucknow rules that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed for disallowance of Section 80P deduction due to legitimate, disclosed claims.
ITAT Delhi held that assessments for defective returns must be made under Section 144, invalidating prior orders issued under Section 143(3).
ITAT Ahmedabad restores the case involving LTCG from penny stocks to CIT(A) for a fresh evaluation, emphasizing principles of natural justice and due process.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the TP assessment carried out by the TPO proceeded on the basis of incorrect appreciation of nature of services availed by the assessee from its AE. Thus, issue of determination of ALP of transactions with AE restored back to TPO.
ITAT Mumbai restores Ivan Santosh Fernandes’ appeal, citing Covid-based extension, for reassessment on AY 2012-13. Penalty appeal also directed for fresh review.
ITAT Chennai allowed the appeal of Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd, overturning the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate income particulars.
