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...
In a case of Vikram Dhirani vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi rules in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty under section 271AAA due to the lack of opportunity to explain undisclosed income source during search proceedings.
In a significant decision, ITAT Ahmedabad rules that a bonafide mistake in computing income tax does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Full analysis here.
Read the full text of the ITAT Ahmedabad order regarding the penalty under Section 271 in the case of Harson Labs Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT for Assessment Year 2015-16.
In Javed Karimkhan Patel vs. ITO, ITAT Pune rules that a son, who did not inherit estate of deceased assessee, cannot be a legal representative in income tax proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee failed to produce books of account before AO as well as before CIT(A). Books were produced before Tribunal. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO with direction to consider the documents produced and adjudicate the issue accordingly.
ITAT Delhi affirms penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act against Amandeep Singh Sran for concealing income. Analysis of the case and its implications.
In a case involving Smt. Madhuvalli Lakamraju vs. ADIT, ITAT Hyderabad deletes the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to lack of source for cash deposits.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as voluntary deposit of tax was done before receiving notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards long term capital gain sustained as assessee failed to furnish confirmation from the purchaser company as lower sale consideration was claimed by assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act treating share application money from undisclosed source unsustainable as burden duly discharged by filing confirmation, affidavit, copy of income tax return and bank statement of respective parties.
