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 Ahmedabad held that making of incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that assessee failed furnish any evidences to prove that there are negotiations between assessee and AEs with regard to marketing strategy, sales targets, credit period, etc. Accordingly, TPO/AO has rightly bench marked payment of agency commission as ‘nil’.
ITAT Delhi holds in the Sabharwal Food Industries Vs DCIT case that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied simply because a claim was not accepted. Discover more about this landmark ruling.
Comprehensive analysis of the ITAT Delhi’s decision in Gulab Impex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, affirming that mere acceptance of disallowance does not necessarily constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
A deep dive into ITAT Mumbai’s ruling in I.G. International Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, underscoring the importance of unambiguous notices under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In Sunrise Broking P. Ltd. Vs ITO, ITAT Ahmedabad abolishes penalty over additions made to interest on income tax refund, recognizing no concealment or inaccuracy in the income particulars.
Held that in the absence of any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search and seizure proceedings, the additions made by the AO during the course of reassessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act are without jurisdiction.
ITAT Bangalore held that foreign travel expenses incurred for obtaining donations which are utilized for charitable purpose is allowed as expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts and due explanation with regard to source of loan transaction is provided, addition u/s 69A towards unexplained money unsustainable.
An in-depth look at the ITAT Dehradun ruling in Saraswati Dynamics Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, highlighting the importance of specifying the grounds for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Explore how the tribunal’s decision impacts tax jurisprudence
