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...
In PCIT Vs Bhudeva Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court emphasized that notices for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must explicitly specify grounds for penalty imposition.
Explore the Delhi High Court judgment on Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act for AY 2014-15. Detailed analysis and legal insights on inaccurate particulars. Read more.
ITAT Jaipur held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the ground and default on the part of the assessee and also without specifying the undisclosed income on which penalty was proposed to be levied is unsustainable-in-law.
Explore the legal battle of Shadawal Enterprises vs CIT in ITAT Mumbai. Analysis of unexplained expenses, eviction, and conclusion. Learn about the crucial remand for a fair decision
Delhi High Court dismisses Departmental appeal on penalty case PCIT vs Gopal Kumar Goyal. Analysis of failure to clarify grounds, AY 2004-05. Full judgment included
ITAT Mumbai held that delay of 33 months in filing appeal before Commissioner condoned on account of reasonable cause and outbreak of Covid-19. However, an amount of Rs. 51,000 directed to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF).
Discover how the ITAT Delhi ruled on penalty proceedings, emphasizing the importance of a precise notice specifying the offense under Section 271(1)(c).
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the addition towards unexplained cash credit as AO failed to conduct independent inquiry and addition was made merely for the reason that there was minor difference in amount of cash deposited vis-à-vis amount of demand draft and amount of invoice.
ITAT Mumbai held that as the assessee should be aware of the exact charge for which the penalty proceeding has been initiated, non-striking on the irrelevant limb under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act vitiates the entire penalty proceedings.
Gujarat High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of any material to establish the concealing of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars unsustainable-in-law.
