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...
Jammu Kashmir High Court held that Tribunal rightly set aside penalty under section 271(1)(c) as AO not clear whether it was case of concealment of particulars of income or failure to furnish correct particulars of income.
ITAT Cuttack dismisses revenue’s appeal, upholding CIT(A)’s decision to delete ₹3.08 crore penalty as the underlying quantum addition no longer exists.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as notice failed to specify under which limb penalty proceedings has been initiated. Thus, penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) deleted.
Assessee filed an appeal concerning the penalty of ₹20,29,394 levied under Section 271AAA for AY 2008-09. It had initially declared a total income of ₹23,62,74,550 in its Return of Income (ROI).
Reassessment initiated under an invalid notice issued under Section 148 as there was no new material with AO after four years that the assessee had escaped assessment, therefore, additions amounting to ₹6.93 crores was deleted.
Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Punit Construction Company has held that in terms of provisions of sub Section 5 of Section 80 IA, deduction has to be given unit wise without considering profit or loss of other eligible units.
The failure of assessee to make the requisite disclosures in Schedule D would neither detract from the relief which had been accorded by AO nor change the factum of carry forward and set off as forming part of the assessment order.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that interest on loans and advance to small advances on debit/ credit balances of suppliers and contractors are incidental to business hence taxable as business income and not as income from other sources.
Revision order was remanded back for re-examination of assessee qualification as venture capital as where the amount had been received from the Venture Capitalists, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable.
ITAT Mumbai quashes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Vijay Jewellers, citing estimated additions for bogus purchases. No concealment or inaccurate details found.
