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...
Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Punit Construction Company has held that in terms of provisions of sub Section 5 of Section 80 IA, deduction has to be given unit wise without considering profit or loss of other eligible units.
The failure of assessee to make the requisite disclosures in Schedule D would neither detract from the relief which had been accorded by AO nor change the factum of carry forward and set off as forming part of the assessment order.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that interest on loans and advance to small advances on debit/ credit balances of suppliers and contractors are incidental to business hence taxable as business income and not as income from other sources.
Revision order was remanded back for re-examination of assessee qualification as venture capital as where the amount had been received from the Venture Capitalists, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable.
ITAT Mumbai quashes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Vijay Jewellers, citing estimated additions for bogus purchases. No concealment or inaccurate details found.
Recent Chennai ITAT decisions address unexplained income, underreporting, and penalties under Sections 69A, 68, 270A, and 271. Key cases provide insights into tax disputes.
ITAT Delhi held that the issuance of notice u/s. 148 based on cryptic reasons combined with a mechanical approval of the Pr.CIT u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act do not pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Thus, reassessment quashed.
AO after providing due opportunity to the assessee, made addition of INR 3,74,08,810/- on the basis that the assessee could not explain and produce books of accounts alongwith supporting evidences.
ITAT Delhi held that the law is very well settled that there cannot be any levy of penalty on an estimated addition on ad hoc disallowances of expenses. Accordingly, penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act quashed.
ITAT Mumbai follows Hexaware Technologies ruling, quashing reassessment for Purohit Food Products due to invalid notice beyond legal limit.
