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...
Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Delhi’s decision to delete additions made on cash salary payments without proper documentation in Vaibhav Jain Vs DCIT case.
ITAT Kolkata decision: No penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Kalna II CADP Farmers Service Co-Op. Society after deletion of the addition basis for penalty.
Suryshree Blocks Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT: ITAT Ahmedabad overturns penalty under Sec 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act due to failure to find any particulars inaccurate. Analysis provided.
ITAT held that non-initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A by the AO, in light of the addition made under the head ‘income from house property’, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue’s interest.
ITAT Mumbai held that exclusion of comparables for the reason that those companies are loss making or low profit making is not correct. Accordingly, TPO directed to include these comparables and re-compute the Arm’s Length Price (ALP).
Bombay High Court ruled AO can’t reopen assessment due to oversight. Emkay Global Financial Services Limited Vs ACIT details.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules accepting stamp authority valuation is not proof of incorrect sale consideration, removing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Mumbai ITAT deletes penalty under section 271(1)(c) for Eureka Outsourcing Solutions, stating making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Kapilaben Patel, deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(C) for undisclosed income, highlighting voluntary disclosure’s importance.
Mumbai ITAT quashes penalty in DCIT vs Sasan Power Ltd case, ruling that furnishing inaccurate expenditure claim does not constitute inaccurate particulars of income, citing bona fide mistake.
