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...
Mumbai ITAT ruled no penalty under section 271(1)(c) if bona fide mistakes in original return were corrected during assessment. Full text analysis included.
Discover ITAT Mumbais decision in S Sagar Enterprise vs DCIT, allowing refund of excess appeal fees and deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Read the ITAT Chennai ruling in Padam J. Challani Vs ACIT case, directing AO to allow telescoping benefit and delete additions of excess gold and diamond jewellery. Full analysis and implications.
ITAT Delhi rules that no addition shall be made when commission earned from consignment sale of foodgrains is reflected in P&L account. Detailed analysis of ITO Vs Smt. Keshar Devi.
Indore ITAT clarifies that a firm can’t deny land ownership if bought through directors. Read the detailed analysis of Bagora Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT case.
ITAT Delhi held that revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act not invocable in absence of any error or infirmity in the assessment order which could make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Read how ITAT Delhi deleted penalty u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act due to a defective notice in Landcraft Developers (Pvt.) Ltd Vs ACIT case.
Explore the case of DCIT Vs Platinum Towers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) regarding personal expenses treated as income, penalties under Section 269SS, and conclusions on the matter.
ITAT Delhi rules against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate income particulars from property sale, emphasizing legal and factual clarity.
Learn from the Bombay High Court’s judgment why actual agricultural activity isn’t crucial in determining land as agricultural, impacting tax liabilities.
