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...
The Tribunal held that failure to indicate the precise charge in a Section 274 notice renders penalty proceedings unsustainable. Following jurisdictional High Court rulings, the penalty was set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that securitisation trusts, cannot be assessed as an AOP, are revocable within the meaning of section 63 of the Income Tax Act and hence income is not taxable in the hands of trust. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld disallowance of political donation deductions where the assessee failed to prove genuineness and the transactions were linked to suspected accommodation entries. The ruling reinforces the burden on taxpayers to substantiate claims under section 80GGC with credible evidence.
The High Court ruled that penalty proceedings arising from search and initiated in assessment are governed by appeal-linked limitation rules. A penalty passed within six months from receipt of the tribunal order was held valid.
Additions under Sections 68 and 69C were set aside after the Tribunal found the mandatory approval to be a mere formality. The ruling reinforces that Section 153D approval is not a procedural ritual.
The tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 270A cannot survive when income is assessed purely on estimated gross profit after rejecting books. Additions based on estimation do not amount to under-reporting or misreporting of income.
Since the reassessment itself was quashed, the addition treating long-term capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 automatically failed. Jurisdictional defects were fatal to the assessment.
The tribunal deleted penalty where the quantum addition was restricted to an estimated profit element. It held that penalty cannot survive without a clear finding of concealment.
The issue was whether reassessment survives when no addition is made on the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal held that such reopening is invalid, making the entire reassessment unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority decided the case without proper hearing and remanded the issue of section 54F deduction for fresh examination of additional evidence.
