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...
Explore the case of Bhagwan Laxman Rokde Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) regarding validity of reopening u/s.147, taxation on undisclosed income, and partnership firm transactions.
Learn how ITAT Mumbai overturned a decision to disallow excessive commission paid by Srinathji Yamunaji Enterprises, citing lack of evidence and business necessity.
ITAT Mumbai held that the ESOP expenses claimed by the assessee is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Read how ITAT Mumbai ruled in Jatin Enterprises vs ACIT case, quashing a penalty notice containing concealed and inaccurate income particulars.
AC Chokshi Share Brokers Pvt Ltd appeals against disallowed legal expenses for out-of-court settlement & defense. ITAT Mumbai orders readjudication. Details here.
ITAT Mumbai held that as there is complete uniformity in not charging interest from AEs and Non-AEs for delay in realization of export proceeds, addition of notional interest in respect of transactions with AEs in the course of transfer pricing proceedings unwarranted.
Explore the Bombay High Court’s ruling on PCIT vs. ICICI Bank Ltd regarding accuracy in income reporting and the deletion of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
In the case of Cavalcade Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITAT mandates re-evaluation of advances against flat bookings, challenging revenue recognition methods.
ITAT Mumbai held that the date of the agreement by no stretch of imagination could be the date of sale of the shares by the assessee. As date of contract of sale would be date of fulfilment of conditions specified in share purchase agreement, date of contract will be treated as date of transfer.
Mumbai ITAT sets aside penalty under section 271B, citing previous penalty under section 271A for non-maintenance of accounts in Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija vs ITO case.
