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...
Read the full text of ITAT Delhi’s order in Orient Clothing Co. vs. ACIT. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted due to vague notices. Analysis and implications discussed.
ITAT Delhi cancels penalty under section 271(1)(c) in Identity Wellness Centre case. Displacement of fair market value supported by valuation report by AO.
Karnataka High Court held that incorrect claim or erroneous claim would not amount to willful evasion. Further, mere fact of not accurate tax, not exact tax or erroneous tax would not lead to the proceedings under Section 276 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that surplus on redemption of treasury bills is taxable under the head Capital Gains and not under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business’.
ITAT’s decision favored Candor Kolkata One Hi-Tech Structures, allowing deductions under Section 80-IAB for on various incomes, including car parking, health club, food court, and interest.
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.
