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 Agra held that matter of levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act restored back to file of AO since Tribunal restored matter of addition towards unexplained cash deposit for quantification.
ITAT Ahmedabad affirms CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹12.92 crore tax addition under Section 40A(3), relying on past gross profit rates and valid agricultural purchases.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act merely based on retracted statement cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that notice issued u/s. 274 without specifying ground for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) i.e. whether penalty is imposed for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is not justifiable.
ITAT Mumbai quashes penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for three assessees due to defective notices and debatable issues in light of Bombay High Court precedents.
Raj Kumar Agarwal HUF’s appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) dismissed as withdrawn under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
ITAT Allahabad quashes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and directs AO to reconsider quantum addition in Chandra Bali Singh’s case.
ITAT Kolkata upholds disallowance of short-term capital loss adjustment for previous AY but deletes penalty due to lack of evidence of intentional wrongdoing.
Assessment proceedings against the petitioner were started and completed on 23.01.2018 and on the same day penalty proceedings were initiated. Appeal against the assessment order got dismissed on 14.11.2022.
ITAT Jaipur held that the litigant cannot be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the consultant or Advocate and disown himself or herself at any time to seek relief for condonation of delay. Accordingly, cost imposed for procedural delay.
