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...
ITAT Delhi held that assessments for defective returns must be made under Section 144, invalidating prior orders issued under Section 143(3).
ITAT Ahmedabad restores the case involving LTCG from penny stocks to CIT(A) for a fresh evaluation, emphasizing principles of natural justice and due process.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the TP assessment carried out by the TPO proceeded on the basis of incorrect appreciation of nature of services availed by the assessee from its AE. Thus, issue of determination of ALP of transactions with AE restored back to TPO.
ITAT Mumbai restores Ivan Santosh Fernandes’ appeal, citing Covid-based extension, for reassessment on AY 2012-13. Penalty appeal also directed for fresh review.
ITAT Chennai allowed the appeal of Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd, overturning the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate income particulars.
Jammu Kashmir High Court held that Tribunal rightly set aside penalty under section 271(1)(c) as AO not clear whether it was case of concealment of particulars of income or failure to furnish correct particulars of income.
ITAT Cuttack dismisses revenue’s appeal, upholding CIT(A)’s decision to delete ₹3.08 crore penalty as the underlying quantum addition no longer exists.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as notice failed to specify under which limb penalty proceedings has been initiated. Thus, penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) deleted.
Assessee filed an appeal concerning the penalty of ₹20,29,394 levied under Section 271AAA for AY 2008-09. It had initially declared a total income of ₹23,62,74,550 in its Return of Income (ROI).
Reassessment initiated under an invalid notice issued under Section 148 as there was no new material with AO after four years that the assessee had escaped assessment, therefore, additions amounting to ₹6.93 crores was deleted.
