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...
Karnataka High Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer since non-response to notice issued under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act by the petitioner was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.
Delhi High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not valid. Accordingly, penalty set aside.
The assessee has not filed any return of income. As per the information, the reasons were recorded and subsequently the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any reply.
ITAT Nagpur held that when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted by or against the corporate debtor. Thus, IBC Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including Income Tax Act.
ITAT Hyderabad held that entire cash deposits added towards unexplained money unjustified since benefit of telescoping of withdrawals against the subsequent deposits should be given. Accordingly, matter remanded back.
Assessee had filed his income tax return on in which he declared a total income of Rs. 35,00,611, accepted under Section 143(1). A subsequent search and seizure operation on Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Co. brought assessee’s finances under scrutiny, as he was allegedly linked to the company.
Upon further examination of the assessee’s bank statements, the Assessing Officer observed that significant funds were being transferred in and out to various parties.
The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of retail milk selling. For the relevant AY 2012-13, the assessee did not originally file a return of income, as the total income was below the basic exemption limit under the Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act not justified since the amount introduced by way of unsecured loans proved to be genuine. Accordingly, disallowance of interest deleted.
ITAT Lucknow rules that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed for disallowance of Section 80P deduction due to legitimate, disclosed claims.
