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...
Recent Chennai ITAT decisions address unexplained income, underreporting, and penalties under Sections 69A, 68, 270A, and 271. Key cases provide insights into tax disputes.
ITAT Delhi held that the issuance of notice u/s. 148 based on cryptic reasons combined with a mechanical approval of the Pr.CIT u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act do not pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Thus, reassessment quashed.
AO after providing due opportunity to the assessee, made addition of INR 3,74,08,810/- on the basis that the assessee could not explain and produce books of accounts alongwith supporting evidences.
ITAT Delhi held that the law is very well settled that there cannot be any levy of penalty on an estimated addition on ad hoc disallowances of expenses. Accordingly, penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act quashed.
ITAT Mumbai follows Hexaware Technologies ruling, quashing reassessment for Purohit Food Products due to invalid notice beyond legal limit.
Calcutta HC dismisses revenue’s appeal in PCIT vs. Chetan Kumar Tekriwal case, ruling that Section 271(1)(c) penalty is not applicable when full disclosure is made.
Hon’ble ITAT Pune rules that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed for genuine mistakes or debatable claims in tax assessments.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money send back for de novo reassessment due to difference in amounts and unclear information.
The assessee is an individual, whose case for AY 2011-12 was reopened on the basis of AIR information available in the system of department, accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2018 and served upon the assessee through RPAD.
ITAT Kolkata allows appeal, deletes Rs. 1,99,911 penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for commission income estimation dispute.
