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...
Reassessment order was quashed on cash deposits as AO did not possess any credible information to form a belief that income had escaped assessment and there was non-application of mind for reopening the matter.
Addition of cash deposit under section 68 was not justified as the same could only be invoked if the taxpayer maintained books of accounts and assessee filed an income tax return under Section 44AD which did not require books of accounts.
Tribunal upheld 20% addition instead of 25% on alleged bogus purchases due to unverified sellers agreeing that assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and confirmed penalty proceedings.
Assessee claimed to have receiving services in the fields of technology, Services, Risk Information Management, Head quarter, Technology Services/back office support services/treasury/regional headquarter services etc.
ITAT Delhi held that holding company can adopt FMV of the asset held by subsidiary company and rework value of investment held in subsidiary company, such approach is not contract to section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justified as deduction was claimed u/s. 54EC and 54F of the Income Tax Act by furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) on sale of shares rightly disallowed as assessee failed to prove genuineness of transaction and long-term capital gain on sale of shares was an arranged affair to convert its own unaccounted money.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that restriction of addition to Rs. 1.45 crore from Rs. 9 crore towards unexplained cash credit on account of share application money by CIT(A) justified as the same was based on evidences.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as AO had not demonstrated any falsehood in the particulars provided by assessee. Mere making a claim that was not legally sustainable did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by assessee.
ITAT Chennai quashes penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271A for AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 in the Srinivasan Chandrasekara case, citing legal deficiencies.
