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 Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, an...
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 : 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 ITAT Delhi cancels a penalty imposed on Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. due to an unqualified offense notice. Learn about the case and its implications.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as there was failure on the part of AO as to which limb of Section 271(1)(c) got attracted for imposition of penalty.
The ITAT in Ahmedabad cancels the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in Ushaben Chauhan’s case due to non-awareness of tax liability on land sale.
Property renovation cannot be disallowed merely for the reason that no telephone number, VAT/TIN number has been mentioned in the bill and there is no charges of VAT levied in the bill
Read about the ITAT Delhi’s direction to submit sales tax documents within 6 months. Analysis of the case between Jay Polychem India Ltd and ACIT.
In the case of Manish Ramanbhai Patel Vs ITO, ITAT Ahmedabad allows the appeal, emphasizing that the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee for on-money paid by co-owners.
ITAT Delhi held that notice issued initiating the penalty proceeding without specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable since there is no concealment of particulars of income by the assessee.
ITAT Kolkata held that as assessee has provided the explanation with documentary evidence and such documents have not been held as false either by AO during assessment proceedings or during penalty proceedings. Hence, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) not leviable.
Madras High Court held that clause (xi) to Explanation to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act relating to the exclusion of the period taken for handing over seized material to the assessing officer is effective prospectively from 01.04.2021. Accordingly, prior assessment years are held to be barred by limitation.
