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...
Calcutta HC dismisses revenue’s appeal in PCIT vs. Chetan Kumar Tekriwal case, ruling that Section 271(1)(c) penalty is not applicable when full disclosure is made.
Hon’ble ITAT Pune rules that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed for genuine mistakes or debatable claims in tax assessments.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money send back for de novo reassessment due to difference in amounts and unclear information.
The assessee is an individual, whose case for AY 2011-12 was reopened on the basis of AIR information available in the system of department, accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2018 and served upon the assessee through RPAD.
ITAT Kolkata allows appeal, deletes Rs. 1,99,911 penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for commission income estimation dispute.
Reassessment order was quashed on cash deposits as AO did not possess any credible information to form a belief that income had escaped assessment and there was non-application of mind for reopening the matter.
Addition of cash deposit under section 68 was not justified as the same could only be invoked if the taxpayer maintained books of accounts and assessee filed an income tax return under Section 44AD which did not require books of accounts.
Tribunal upheld 20% addition instead of 25% on alleged bogus purchases due to unverified sellers agreeing that assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and confirmed penalty proceedings.
Assessee claimed to have receiving services in the fields of technology, Services, Risk Information Management, Head quarter, Technology Services/back office support services/treasury/regional headquarter services etc.
ITAT Delhi held that holding company can adopt FMV of the asset held by subsidiary company and rework value of investment held in subsidiary company, such approach is not contract to section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act.
