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 Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justified as deduction was claimed u/s. 54EC and 54F of the Income Tax Act by furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) on sale of shares rightly disallowed as assessee failed to prove genuineness of transaction and long-term capital gain on sale of shares was an arranged affair to convert its own unaccounted money.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that restriction of addition to Rs. 1.45 crore from Rs. 9 crore towards unexplained cash credit on account of share application money by CIT(A) justified as the same was based on evidences.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as AO had not demonstrated any falsehood in the particulars provided by assessee. Mere making a claim that was not legally sustainable did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by assessee.
ITAT Chennai quashes penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271A for AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 in the Srinivasan Chandrasekara case, citing legal deficiencies.
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes penalty on Shree Gunatit Jyot Mahila Trust for a bona fide error in deduction claim on building construction expenses.
ITAT Jaipur held that there was short gap between three notices issued as say the opportunities granted hence it a fit case were one more opportunity should be granted in the proceedings before CIT(A), to enable the assessee to represent his appeals.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act unjustified when an assessment has been completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned delay of 326 days in filing quantum appeal and delay of 1 day in filing penalty appeal as assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay.
ITAT Raipur held that law will help only those who are vigilant and will not assist the one who are careless. Accordingly, request of assessee to restore matter back not granted as assessee has chosen not to represent its matter for more than 08 years.
