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 significant decision, ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of D.C. Polyester Ltd., stating that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed for incorrect income head treatment.
In a landmark decision, ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of Evermore Polymer Systems Ltd., stating that penalties under Section 271B require a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
ITAT Ahmedabad directs readjudication of ex-parte assessment orders passed without considering additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules.
ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment of income under section 147 of the Income Tax Act other than income in respect of which AO has formed a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment is unsustainable in law.
Bombay High Court held that Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) could give directions only in pending assessment proceedings. Once assessment order is passed, DRP has not power to pass any direction.
ITAT Delhi held that for the purpose of Section 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the assessment can be said to be ‘made’ only when the DIN is quoted on the order before it is signed. Order passed u/s 153A without first generating the DIN is invalid and bad-in-law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the provision of section 50C of Act cannot be made applicable to transaction of capital assets transferred by assessee to a partnership firm by way capital contribution. Such transaction falls under the provision of section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Read the full text of the ITAT Delhi order in the case of DCIT vs. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
In a landmark decision, ITAT Delhi rules no penalty under 271(1)(c) for a bonafide assessee who revised and added interest income. Analysis of Pramila Tarneja Vs DCIT case.
ITAT Mumbai’s ruling on penalty for concealed income based on estimated additions. Analysis of case, legal arguments, and conclusion.
