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...
DCIT Vs Milan Kavinchandra Parikh (ITAT Mumbai) Introduction: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai recently delivered a pivotal judgment in the case between the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) and Milan Kavinchandra Parikh. The judgment raises key questions surrounding the jurisdiction of penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This […]
ITAT Amritsar held that initiation of Assessment Proceedings u/s 153C, instead of section 153A, in case of the searched assessee makes the entire assessment invalid. Accordingly, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not maintainable.
Analyzing the recent ITAT Jaipur ruling on Safiq Ahmad Vs ITO. Assessee penalized for failing to cooperate in penalty proceedings under Sections 271B & 271(1)(c) of the Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that payment of cash towards purchase of land exceeding the prescribed limit is duly disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that on execution of agreement when the possession was also handed over, the transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) and (vi) was complete and accordingly capital gain provisions gets applicable.
ITAT Mumbai held that in case of company is involved in providing illicit LTCG/ short term capital loss (accommodation entries), a substantial addition has to be made in the hands of beneficiaries and only a protective assessment can be made in the hands of company providing such accommodation entries.
Jharkhand High Court held that once penalty order is set aside, it will be presumed that there is no concealment and hence prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act will be quashed automatically.
ITAT Mumbai ruling in DCIT Vs Sai Sugam Enterprises. declares penalty notices under section 274 as invalid if not specifying charge against assessee.
Analysis of ITAT Delhi’s decision on the case between Home Developers Project Pvt. Ltd. & DCIT. Focus on AO’s failure & burden of evidence on the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act rightly invoked by PCIT as order of assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
