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...
Bombay High Court ruled AO can’t reopen assessment due to oversight. Emkay Global Financial Services Limited Vs ACIT details.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules accepting stamp authority valuation is not proof of incorrect sale consideration, removing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Mumbai ITAT deletes penalty under section 271(1)(c) for Eureka Outsourcing Solutions, stating making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Kapilaben Patel, deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(C) for undisclosed income, highlighting voluntary disclosure’s importance.
Mumbai ITAT quashes penalty in DCIT vs Sasan Power Ltd case, ruling that furnishing inaccurate expenditure claim does not constitute inaccurate particulars of income, citing bona fide mistake.
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.
