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 Mumbai held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not leviable as mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
A comprehensive analysis of the landmark ITAT Delhi case, Sushila Goyal Vs ITO, highlighting the tribunal’s stance on penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when additions are made on an estimated basis.
ITAT Ahmedabad case between Standard Radiators Pvt Ltd and ACIT, involving an inaccurate income penalty dispute related to interest expense misclassification
ITAT Kolkata held that addition on account of lesser amount considered as claw back payment unsustained as in case, a higher amount is to be considered as claw back payment, then a higher amount is to be allowed as a deduction not character of income
ITAT Jaipur in Yogendra Khandelwal Vs ACIT, mandates re-adjudication for penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) without adequate hearing.
ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not applicable when an assessee doesn’t furnish inaccurate income details. This ruling was made in the case of Khanpur Vibhag Madhyamik Shala Karmchari Dhiran & Grahak Sahakari Mandali Limited Vs ACIT
ITAT Mumbai held that recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where date of agreement fixing amount of consideration for transfer of property and ate of registration is not same, the stamp duty value on the date of allotment is to be taken.
Balwant Baburao Vitekar (Late) vs ITO (ITAT Pune) where the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was challenged. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that the assessee was not given the opportunity to assist in the penalty proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that if a matter is restored to AO for passing a rectification order, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act does not survive. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty order.
