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...
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the amount of refund issued to the assessee will be first adjusted against the interest then, after that against the principal amount.
ITAT Delhi held that rendering cloud computing services/ Amazon Web Services (AWS Services) cannot be held to be liable to tax in India either as royalty or as Fees for Technical Services (FTS)/ Fees for Included Services (FIS).
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years without failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
An examination of section 271AAB penalty when no undisclosed income is found during search actions. Discover how ITAT Nagpur ruled on this critical tax law issue.
Delhi High Court supports Valley Iron & Steel Co.’s voluntary enhancement of disallowance under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Detailed analysis and implications here.
ITAT Mumbai rules that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not leviable on estimated additions. The decision is based on the principle established in previous judgments.
In a significant ruling, ITAT Ahmedabad relieves an assessee from penalties due to accountant’s mistake. Full review of Dharmendrakumar B Mehta Vs ITO case here.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as denial of claim of deduction u/s 80HH/ 80IA doesn’t tantamount to concealment of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
In the case of Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, the ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, declaring the final assessment order void due to failure to comply with mandatory procedure u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act.
In the case of Goldline Dealers Pvt Ltd vs. ITO, ITAT Kolkata directs re-adjudication due to incomplete investigation & application of mind on the issue of Addition for Share Capital & Premium. Read the full text of the ITAT order.
