Income Tax : Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculati...
Income Tax : Grounds of Appeal related to the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , 1961 AY 2015-16 1. In the facts and circumstances of t...
Income Tax : Learn about the penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act of 1961 for various defaults and offenses. Find out the fines ...
Income Tax : Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against...
Income Tax : Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecu...
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 : ITAT Mumbai removes penalty imposed on Sunil Bhagwandas Vorani (HUF) as addition was made on estimation basis, not due to concealm...
Income Tax : Explore the detailed ITAT Mumbai order analysis of Yogesh P. Thakkar vs DCIT, focusing on disputed long-term capital gains and com...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Mumbai order in the case of Krimesh Ramesh Divecha Vs DCIT for A.Y. 2015-16. Understand the assessm...
Income Tax : Delhi HC: No penalty for New Holland Tractors if assessee's contention was plausible and bona fide, provided full disclosure of fa...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Grey Orange India Pvt. Ltd., allowing income tax deduction on warranty expenses. Detailed analysis of...
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 Mumbai held that exclusion of comparables for the reason that those companies are loss making or low profit making is not correct. Accordingly, TPO directed to include these comparables and re-compute the Arm’s Length Price (ALP).
Bombay High Court ruled AO can’t reopen assessment due to oversight. Emkay Global Financial Services Limited Vs ACIT details.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules accepting stamp authority valuation is not proof of incorrect sale consideration, removing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Mumbai ITAT deletes penalty under section 271(1)(c) for Eureka Outsourcing Solutions, stating making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Kapilaben Patel, deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(C) for undisclosed income, highlighting voluntary disclosure’s importance.
Mumbai ITAT quashes penalty in DCIT vs Sasan Power Ltd case, ruling that furnishing inaccurate expenditure claim does not constitute inaccurate particulars of income, citing bona fide mistake.
ITAT Bangalore held that in case where AO of the searched person and the other person is the same, there can be one satisfaction note prepared by AO. Preparation of one satisfaction note will satisfy the requirement of section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT concluded that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was unsustainable due to the defect in the statutory notice and the fact that the penalty was imposed on additions made through estimation.
Explore the case of Dombivali Paper Mfg. Co. challenging penalty under section 271(1)(c) for alleged bogus purchases. Detailed analysis, tribunal’s view, and legal insights provided.
Explore the case of Ramprasad Nigam vs ITO under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowed exemption claim under Section 54. The penalty is quashed based on accurate disclosure.
