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...
The Tribunal held that omission of taxable foreign exchange gain in the return attracts penalty. It noted that disclosure during assessment does not absolve liability. The ruling highlights importance of correct income reporting.
The dispute concerned enforcement of long-pending tax demands without timely action. The Court held that prolonged inaction by authorities and absence of proof of service violated fairness. It quashed the notice while allowing fresh remedies.
The issue was whether penalty for bogus purchases was justified. The Tribunal held that concealment through non-genuine purchases attracts penalty, confirming the levy.
The case examines whether penalty can be levied when the quantum issue is admitted by the High Court. The Tribunal held that admission of substantial questions of law makes the issue debatable. As a result, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly deleted.
The tribunal held that capital gains from share buyback are not taxable in India under treaty provisions. It clarified that such transactions qualify as corporate reorganisation. The key takeaway is that DTAA benefits override domestic tax provisions when more beneficial.
ITAT upheld deletion of penalty as the exemption issue was pending before the High Court. The assessee had filed an undertaking under Section 158A. The ruling highlights that penalty cannot be sustained when the core issue is yet to be finally adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C may not apply if properties are held as stock-in-trade. It remanded the case to verify whether transactions were part of real estate business.
The case examined the validity of reassessment notices issued beyond the permissible period. The Court ruled that such notices are invalid in light of binding precedent, leading to quashing of the entire reassessment.
The Tribunal found that the AO wrongly taxed an investment in an incorrect assessment year. Evidence showed the purchase occurred earlier than the year under consideration. The decision highlights the importance of correct year-wise taxation.
The Tribunal held reopening valid as tangible material showed undisclosed capital gains. It ruled that execution of a registered sale deed triggers tax liability even if consideration is disputed.
