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...
Bombay High Court held that Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) could give directions only in pending assessment proceedings. Once assessment order is passed, DRP has not power to pass any direction.
ITAT Delhi held that for the purpose of Section 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the assessment can be said to be ‘made’ only when the DIN is quoted on the order before it is signed. Order passed u/s 153A without first generating the DIN is invalid and bad-in-law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the provision of section 50C of Act cannot be made applicable to transaction of capital assets transferred by assessee to a partnership firm by way capital contribution. Such transaction falls under the provision of section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Read the full text of the ITAT Delhi order in the case of DCIT vs. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
In a landmark decision, ITAT Delhi rules no penalty under 271(1)(c) for a bonafide assessee who revised and added interest income. Analysis of Pramila Tarneja Vs DCIT case.
ITAT Mumbai’s ruling on penalty for concealed income based on estimated additions. Analysis of case, legal arguments, and conclusion.
Discover the Delhi High Court’s ruling in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited regarding undisclosed income taxation and double taxation.
Delhi High Court sets aside Assessment and Penalty Orders due to AO’s oversight and insufficient response time, remanding matters for a fair hearing.
ITAT Mumbai held that rate of tax in case of foreign company is higher than rate of tax in case of domestic company and as per the Explanation in the Section 90, inserted in the IT Act with retrospective effect from 01-04-1962 the should not be regarded as violation of nondiscrimination clause.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that payment of guarantee fee to the Govt. of Gujarat in consideration of guarantee issued by it for repayment of unsecured loan is revenue expenditure.
