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...
It was claimed that the notice under Section 148 was time-barred, reasons recorded under Section 147 were vague, and proper show-cause notices were not issued, violating Section 144B.
In the abovementioned case ITAT remanded the matter to CIT (A) after considering the fact that no proper opportunity was availed by assessee before CIT (A) and revenue has no objection in remanding the matter.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands Ashadeep Industries vs. ITO for rehearing, emphasizing procedural fairness and opportunity to be heard under natural justice principles.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that cost of improvement to make a house livable qualifies for capital gains deduction. Penalty on disallowed expenses also canceled.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT Delhi vitiated penalty proceedings after examining that non mentioning of charge for which penalty is to be levied makes the notice as much defective as non striking of irrelevant clauses in the notice.
ITAT Ahmedabad directs CIT(A) to reconsider penalty appeal of Shreenath Corporation, emphasizing delay condonation and pending quantum proceedings.
In the case abovementioned ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the matter to CIT (A) after considering that assessee could not file evidence before CIT (A) in lack of service of notices.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the income of beneficiaries of trust cannot be treated as income in the hands of the trust. Accordingly, disallowance under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act not justified.
Since the reason for the delay seemed genuine, it was condoned. It was held that assessee had not given the explanation as to why assessee did not appear before AO and file the details of source of the deposits within the stipulated time.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that that the activities / services do not qualify as stewardship / shareholder activity. Further, assessee correctly determined Arm’s Length Price in respect of management fees by using Transaction Net Margin Method i.e. TNMM.
