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 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 : The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscio...
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 cost reimbursement received towards providing support services is taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) both under Section 9(1) (vii) of the Act as well as Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
ITAT Hyderabad held that law doesn’t permit delegation of authority by PCIT to Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Accordingly, direction issued by PCIT to AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is unlawful.
Ashvin Narayan Bajoria (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) Recently the SMC Bench of Surat Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed a judgement in the aforementioned case deleting the penalty levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The central point of discussion was whether or not penalty imposed […]
ITAT Delhi held that penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) without specifying the limb is vague and ambiguous, accordingly, penalty proceedings not sustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that the income from technical handling services received from ‘International Airlines Technical Pool (IATP) members is not taxable in India as it is covered under Article 8(2) r.w. Article 8(1) of India-France DTAA.
The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of GBT III BV, Netherlands and is engaged in the business of arranging travel for domestic customers within and outside India by facilitating services entailing booking of air tickets, accommodation, cab, conference rooms, catering services, management of corporate events, public relation services etc.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act not allowable in current year. Orders reexamination for Previous A.Y. Details here.
Read the full text of ITAT Ahmedabad’s order deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Dineshkumar Kanjibhai Patel-HUF as no concealment of particulars or inaccurate income filing found.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards short term capital loss treating it as bogus unsustainable as transaction of purchase and sale of shares done through banking channel and STT duly paid thereon.
Explore the ITAT Delhi’s ruling in the Sheetal Mehra vs ITO case, where an inconsistent application of penalty led to its deletion.
