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...
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes penalty on Shree Gunatit Jyot Mahila Trust for a bona fide error in deduction claim on building construction expenses.
ITAT Jaipur held that there was short gap between three notices issued as say the opportunities granted hence it a fit case were one more opportunity should be granted in the proceedings before CIT(A), to enable the assessee to represent his appeals.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act unjustified when an assessment has been completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned delay of 326 days in filing quantum appeal and delay of 1 day in filing penalty appeal as assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay.
ITAT Raipur held that law will help only those who are vigilant and will not assist the one who are careless. Accordingly, request of assessee to restore matter back not granted as assessee has chosen not to represent its matter for more than 08 years.
ITAT Raipur held that CIT(A) deleted the addition towards unexplained cash under section 68 of the Income Tax Act without proper verification of the facts and evidences and thus the matter restored back to the file of AO for adequate verifications.
ITAT Mumbai held that notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the particular limb is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) is not sustainable.
AO was not justified in addition of interest expenses debited in the P&L account, a sum of Rs.2,12,94,836/- was capitalized towards CWIP under Section 36(1)(iii) of and added to the total income of the assessee.
The assessee is a co–operative credit society, registered under Maharashtra co–operative society Act, 1960 and is engaged in providing credit facilities to those CIDCO employees who are members of credit society.
ITAT Hyderabad held that voluntary surrender of income in good faith cannot be considered as concealment of income. Hence, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained.
