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 held that addition towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act unwarranted as the amount represents sales already declared and taxed. Thus, income already offered for taxation cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credit.
ITAT Delhi ruled that penalties for income misreporting cannot be imposed if there’s no malafide intention. Pranav Vikas India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not justified.
ITAT Kolkata held that additions u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act could only be made on the basis of seized material found during the course of search. Thus, making additions in regular assessment without any incriminating material relating to said addition not justified.
Rajasthan HC upholds penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained cash deposits after withdrawals. Appeal dismissed; no substantial question of law involved.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not imposable in absence of wilful intention on the part of the assessee to conceal income since all the errors in original return was rectified vide revised return.
Certain expenses related to cost of improvement of land put forward by assessee were disallowed noting lack of proper and sufficient evidence to support claims of cost incurred for improvement of property.
Explore why penalties should not be imposed on estimated income, supported by legal rulings and principles ensuring fair tax administration.
Delhi High Court held that once the Tribunal had called upon the AO to examine the issue afresh, the said direction could not have been disregarded by reference to a Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989 issued by the CBDT.
When an assessee voluntarily discloses income and the assessment is based on this disclosure without any changes, imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unjustified.
