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 case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
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...
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when income is determined on an estimated basis. In absence of clear concealment, the Rs.5.41 lakh penalty was deleted.
The Bombay High Court held that a pending penalty appeal qualifies as a “dispute” under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Rejection solely for absence of assessment appeal was set aside
ITAT Mumbai held that balancing figure between the slump sale consideration and the value of identifiable tangible assets represents goodwill or commercial rights in the nature of an intangible asset, and depreciation thereon is allowable under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal observed that the AO disallowed 50% of warranty provisions and 25% of liabilities without justification. It held that in absence of specific defects in remand proceedings, such ad hoc disallowances cannot survive.
With the Section 50C addition and 54F disallowance deleted, the Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive. It emphasized that penalty cannot stand when the underlying additions are removed.
The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is unsustainable. The reassessment and all consequential penalties were accordingly quashed.
The Tribunal upheld penalty for non-filing of return under Explanation 3 but ruled that computation must reduce TDS and self-assessment tax paid before notice. Penalty was reduced from Rs. 8.56 lakh to Rs. 85,992.
The Tribunal held that failure to provide opportunity to cross-examine foreign information sources amounted to violation of natural justice. Additions based on unverified documents were therefore invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under Section 148 issued before obtaining mandatory approval under Section 151 is invalid. Since sanction was granted after issuance of notice, the reassessment was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal confirmed the jurisdictional validity of reassessment based on new information. However, the addition was restored to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and Section 250(6).
