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...
ITAT Bangalore held that in case where AO of the searched person and the other person is the same, there can be one satisfaction note prepared by AO. Preparation of one satisfaction note will satisfy the requirement of section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT concluded that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was unsustainable due to the defect in the statutory notice and the fact that the penalty was imposed on additions made through estimation.
Explore the case of Dombivali Paper Mfg. Co. challenging penalty under section 271(1)(c) for alleged bogus purchases. Detailed analysis, tribunal’s view, and legal insights provided.
Explore the case of Ramprasad Nigam vs ITO under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowed exemption claim under Section 54. The penalty is quashed based on accurate disclosure.
ITAT Mumbai held in Supertech Construction Company Vs ACIT that penalty notice lacked clarity on grounds for penalty & penalties cannot be levied on additions made on Estimated Bogus Purchase Addition.
Read the full text of ITAT Delhi’s order in Orient Clothing Co. vs. ACIT. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted due to vague notices. Analysis and implications discussed.
ITAT Delhi cancels penalty under section 271(1)(c) in Identity Wellness Centre case. Displacement of fair market value supported by valuation report by AO.
Karnataka High Court held that incorrect claim or erroneous claim would not amount to willful evasion. Further, mere fact of not accurate tax, not exact tax or erroneous tax would not lead to the proceedings under Section 276 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that surplus on redemption of treasury bills is taxable under the head Capital Gains and not under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business’.
ITAT’s decision favored Candor Kolkata One Hi-Tech Structures, allowing deductions under Section 80-IAB for on various incomes, including car parking, health club, food court, and interest.
