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 a case involving Smt. Madhuvalli Lakamraju vs. ADIT, ITAT Hyderabad deletes the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to lack of source for cash deposits.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as voluntary deposit of tax was done before receiving notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards long term capital gain sustained as assessee failed to furnish confirmation from the purchaser company as lower sale consideration was claimed by assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act treating share application money from undisclosed source unsustainable as burden duly discharged by filing confirmation, affidavit, copy of income tax return and bank statement of respective parties.
Held that the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable to the assessee to the extent of operations carried out through operating qualifying ships where the income is taxed under Tonnage Tax Scheme.
Bombay High Court held that rejection of benefit under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 (DTVSV) unjustified as pendency of prosecution was in respect of any issue and not in respect of tax arrears.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable in absence of any concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions of Section 43CA of the Income Tax Act are effective only from 1st April 2014. Accordingly, the same are not applicable when part payment was received in 2010.
ITAT Delhi rules that penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed based on non-existing or deleted disallowances.
ITAT Mumbai held that “other method” provided in Rule 10AB r.w.s. 92C (1) would be a good substitute for CUP as there is lack of reliable comparables in case of royalty transactions as royalty payments have been made for unique intangibles
