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 lack of awareness of the assessment order and limited knowledge of tax law constituted sufficient cause for...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that a penalty notice lacking clarity on whether it relates to concealment or inaccurate particulars is invalid....
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 : 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...
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.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed overseas bank account was confirmed on wrong notion of denial of appellant to sign consent waiver form. Matter remanded back as appellant has signed the consent waiver form and accordingly AO can carry out relevant enquiry.
Review of the ITAT Delhi’s decision on Arrow Manpower Services case. Discussion on the disallowance of depreciation claim and implications of the verdict.
ITAT Mumbai decides on the applicability of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) after disclosing concealed income under the IDS scheme.
ITAT Delhi held that depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act not available as the assessee is not carrying on any business activity.
A detailed review of Raghuvirsinh Vaghela vs ITO case where ITAT Ahmedabad ruled on the validity of compensation claims in co-ownership development agreements.
ITAT Mumbai held that cost reimbursement received towards providing support services is taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) both under Section 9(1) (vii) of the Act as well as Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
ITAT Hyderabad held that law doesn’t permit delegation of authority by PCIT to Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Accordingly, direction issued by PCIT to AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is unlawful.
Ashvin Narayan Bajoria (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) Recently the SMC Bench of Surat Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed a judgement in the aforementioned case deleting the penalty levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The central point of discussion was whether or not penalty imposed […]
