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 Raipur held that CIT(A) deleted the addition towards unexplained cash under section 68 of the Income Tax Act without proper verification of the facts and evidences and thus the matter restored back to the file of AO for adequate verifications.
ITAT Mumbai held that notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the particular limb is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) is not sustainable.
AO was not justified in addition of interest expenses debited in the P&L account, a sum of Rs.2,12,94,836/- was capitalized towards CWIP under Section 36(1)(iii) of and added to the total income of the assessee.
The assessee is a co–operative credit society, registered under Maharashtra co–operative society Act, 1960 and is engaged in providing credit facilities to those CIDCO employees who are members of credit society.
ITAT Hyderabad held that voluntary surrender of income in good faith cannot be considered as concealment of income. Hence, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act unwarranted as the amount represents sales already declared and taxed. Thus, income already offered for taxation cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credit.
ITAT Delhi ruled that penalties for income misreporting cannot be imposed if there’s no malafide intention. Pranav Vikas India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not justified.
ITAT Kolkata held that additions u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act could only be made on the basis of seized material found during the course of search. Thus, making additions in regular assessment without any incriminating material relating to said addition not justified.
Rajasthan HC upholds penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained cash deposits after withdrawals. Appeal dismissed; no substantial question of law involved.
