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...
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an appellate authority can exercise the power u/s. 251(1)(a) to enhance the assessment only after giving a notice for enhancement. Accordingly, enhancement by CIT(A) without issuance of notice is untenable in law.
Since the penalty was reduced from 300% to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 279(1A) of Income Tax.
Read ITAT Mumbai order setting property allotment date as acquisition date for capital gain computation. Details of D.K. Brothers vs. ITO case and implications.
The impugned notices and orders were issued by the respondents/revenue admittedly subsequent to the public announcement under Section 15 of the Code regarding CIRP process pertaining to assessee and it was only subsequent to approval of the Resolution Plan of the Tribunal that Revenue issued the impugned Assessment Order and Demand Notice.
Explore the case of Pr. CIT vs Ansal Properties: Penalty notice invalidated due to ambiguity in specifying Section 271(1)(c) limb for penalty proceedings.
Explore the Karnataka High Court’s ruling on penalty notices under Income Tax Act in CIT vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows. Learn about specificity requirements and key findings.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Pr. CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. clarifies Section 44, emphasizes specificity in penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c).
Delhi High Court judgment on PCIT vs GoDaddy: Assessee succeeds in quantum appeal, penalty deleted. Analysis of legal tenability and implications under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Delhi held that without pointing out any specific defect in the audited books of accounts, AO cannot and should not make any estimated addition. Accordingly, such estimated addition deleted.
Explore the confusion surrounding Section 271(1)(c) penalty in PCIT Vs Modi Rubber Ltd. (Delhi High Court). Lack of clarity on concealment or inaccurate particulars raises questions.
