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...
ITAT has held in the case of Meera Anirudha Mirgunde Vs ITO that when there is no variation in the returned and assessable income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not leviable.
Read the full text of the order of ITAT Jaipur in the case of Lalit Kumar Kalwar Vs ITO. The quantum appeal is allowed, and the deduction under Section 54F is granted, resulting in the penalty being vacated.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unsecured loan under section 68 of the Income Tax Act sustained as assessee failed to discharge the primary onus and burden of proof of providing genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of creditors to the satisfaction of the A.O.
The ITAT Delhi nullifies the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on Meena Singhal, as the notice issued did not specify the particular charge.
ITAT Pune has set aside an NFAC order in the Kongnoli Sarva Seva Society Ltd vs ITO case. The ruling established that incorrect claims of deductions or expenses in ITR does not equate to the concealment of income
ITAT Ahmedabad held that when application of income is more than receipts of year, excess application of income i.e., expenditure in the hands of the assessee can be carried forward to succeeding Year.
The ITAT in Mumbai cancels penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in the case of Fancy Diamonds India Pvt Ltd. The tribunal held that such penalties aren’t applicable when additions are made purely on estimation
ITAT Ahmedabad held that no penalty can be imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of expenses incurred for increase of authorized share capital since no penalty can be imposed when there was no willful concealment.
ITAT Pune held that imposition of penalty under section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb within which the penalty is imposed is unsustainable. Failure of AO to quote any of the six sub-limbs as prescribed u/s 270A(9) makes imposition of penalty unsustainable
In the case of N.B. Builders & Promoters (P) Ltd Vs CIT, ITAT Chandigarh held that penalties cannot be imposed for mere lower gross profit based on assumptions and conjectures.
