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...
Explore the Delhi High Court’s judgment in PCIT Vs Unitech Reliable Projects regarding Section 271(1)(c) penalties. The court emphasizes the necessity of specifying the relevant limb in penalty proceedings.
Delve into Delhi High Court’s judgment on PCIT Vs Minu Bakshi, exploring penalty imposition, notice specifics, and impact on income tax cases.
PCIT vs. Minu Bakshi: Delhi High Court Clarifies No Penalty if notice for the imposition of penalty did not specify particular limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was levied.
CIT (Exemptions) Vs Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation, Delhi High Court emphasized that penalty notice must specify precise limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty is imposed.
ITAT has deleted the entire addition and disallowance based for imposition of penalty, the penalty imposed so cannot continue and therefore, deserves to be deleted in full with reference to aforesaid the addition & disallowance.
In PCIT Vs Bhudeva Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court emphasized that notices for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must explicitly specify grounds for penalty imposition.
Explore the Delhi High Court judgment on Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act for AY 2014-15. Detailed analysis and legal insights on inaccurate particulars. Read more.
ITAT Jaipur held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the ground and default on the part of the assessee and also without specifying the undisclosed income on which penalty was proposed to be levied is unsustainable-in-law.
Explore the legal battle of Shadawal Enterprises vs CIT in ITAT Mumbai. Analysis of unexplained expenses, eviction, and conclusion. Learn about the crucial remand for a fair decision
Delhi High Court dismisses Departmental appeal on penalty case PCIT vs Gopal Kumar Goyal. Analysis of failure to clarify grounds, AY 2004-05. Full judgment included
