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 Delhi held that punitive damage being allowed as negative restitution cannot be allowed as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act
Bombay High Court held that plea of defect in the notice cannot be accepted as it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee “clearly understood” what was the purport and import of notice issued under section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act.
Bombay High Court held that if an irrelevant matter is not struck off in the notice, it indicates the AO’s uncertainty regarding the basis for imposing the penalty. Such ambiguity implies non-application of mind, rendering the notice invalid.
Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment invoking provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act inspired from a review and a change of opinion is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Kerala High Court orders revision of penalty after fresh assessment in P.M. Abdul Nazeer vs ACIT case. Details of the judgment and its implications.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an appellate authority can exercise the power u/s. 251(1)(a) to enhance the assessment only after giving a notice for enhancement. Accordingly, enhancement by CIT(A) without issuance of notice is untenable in law.
Since the penalty was reduced from 300% to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 279(1A) of Income Tax.
Read ITAT Mumbai order setting property allotment date as acquisition date for capital gain computation. Details of D.K. Brothers vs. ITO case and implications.
The impugned notices and orders were issued by the respondents/revenue admittedly subsequent to the public announcement under Section 15 of the Code regarding CIRP process pertaining to assessee and it was only subsequent to approval of the Resolution Plan of the Tribunal that Revenue issued the impugned Assessment Order and Demand Notice.
Explore the case of Pr. CIT vs Ansal Properties: Penalty notice invalidated due to ambiguity in specifying Section 271(1)(c) limb for penalty proceedings.
