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 notice issued initiating the penalty proceeding without specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable since there is no concealment of particulars of income by the assessee.
ITAT Kolkata held that as assessee has provided the explanation with documentary evidence and such documents have not been held as false either by AO during assessment proceedings or during penalty proceedings. Hence, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) not leviable.
Madras High Court held that clause (xi) to Explanation to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act relating to the exclusion of the period taken for handing over seized material to the assessing officer is effective prospectively from 01.04.2021. Accordingly, prior assessment years are held to be barred by limitation.
In a case of Vikram Dhirani vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi rules in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty under section 271AAA due to the lack of opportunity to explain undisclosed income source during search proceedings.
In a significant decision, ITAT Ahmedabad rules that a bonafide mistake in computing income tax does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Full analysis here.
Read the full text of the ITAT Ahmedabad order regarding the penalty under Section 271 in the case of Harson Labs Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT for Assessment Year 2015-16.
In Javed Karimkhan Patel vs. ITO, ITAT Pune rules that a son, who did not inherit estate of deceased assessee, cannot be a legal representative in income tax proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee failed to produce books of account before AO as well as before CIT(A). Books were produced before Tribunal. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO with direction to consider the documents produced and adjudicate the issue accordingly.
ITAT Delhi affirms penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act against Amandeep Singh Sran for concealing income. Analysis of the case and its implications.
