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 Mumbai held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not imposable in absence of wilful intention on the part of the assessee to conceal income since all the errors in original return was rectified vide revised return.
Certain expenses related to cost of improvement of land put forward by assessee were disallowed noting lack of proper and sufficient evidence to support claims of cost incurred for improvement of property.
Explore why penalties should not be imposed on estimated income, supported by legal rulings and principles ensuring fair tax administration.
Delhi High Court held that once the Tribunal had called upon the AO to examine the issue afresh, the said direction could not have been disregarded by reference to a Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989 issued by the CBDT.
When an assessee voluntarily discloses income and the assessment is based on this disclosure without any changes, imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unjustified.
Penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on estimated additions without concrete evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Kolkata held that foreign allowance received by a non-resident outside India for services rendered outside India does not fall within the scope of total income under section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that affiliation with and recognition by a regulatory authority are not essential attributes of education under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. NIIT Foundation engaged in conducting systematic and formal instruction, schooling or training qualifies u/s. 2(15).
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as allowability of deprecation on non-compete fee is highly contentious as different views are taken by various High Courts and matter is pending before Supreme Court.
ITAT Mumbai removes penalty imposed on Sunil Bhagwandas Vorani (HUF) as addition was made on estimation basis, not due to concealment.
