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...
Detailed analysis of ITAT Mumbai case of Parag Motilal Savla vs ITO, focusing on lack of substantial evidence for cash loan allegations.
Explore the ITAT Ahmedabad ruling on Intas Pharmaceuticals Vs ACIT, focusing on working capital adjustment and notional interest on trade receivables.
The Kerala High Court rules that additional income disclosed voluntarily cannot be treated as concealed income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Read the detailed order by ITAT Bangalore regarding Samaja Seva Mandali vs. ITO. Assessing real intentions of trust in land purchase for school building construction.
Bombay High Court rules IT search under Section 132 invalid if authorization is based on irrelevant and unrelated material. Detailed case analysis inside.
xplore DCIT Vs Polyplex Corp. Limited case. Learn why penalty for disallowed tax claim isn’t justified. Details & key takeaways here.
Can penalty under Section 271(1)(c) be imposed if self-assessment tax was paid before notice u/s 148? Read the detailed analysis of Smt. Kavita Sachdev Vs ITO (ITAT Indore).
ITAT Chennai observed that differences in valuation opinions are common, and the assessee’s claim based on an approved valuer’s report cannot be deemed as concealment of income. Citing precedents from the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, the ITAT ruled that an incorrect claim in law does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT observed that the disallowance of expenses by the AO was on an estimate and ad hoc basis due to the absence of supporting evidence, rather than evidence of concealment of income. Referring to legal precedents, the ITAT emphasized that disallowance based on the magnitude of expenses or missing vouchers is insufficient to justify a penalty, especially without evidence of mala fide intent.
Tribunal ruled that mere disallowance of expenses or enhancement of returned income does not automatically warrant the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c)
