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 Hyderabad held that as addition was not made voluntary but was made only after the search and incriminating evidences found during the search, accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act towards such addition is sustainable.
ITAT Pune held that change in method of accounting cannot partake character of concealment. Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
ITAT Delhi’s verdict in the case of Gawar Constructions Co. Vs DCIT, illuminating the importance of clear particulars in the imposition of tax penalties. Understand how discrepancies between the initial ‘satisfaction’ and the grounds for penalty can lead to quashing of penalty orders.
ITAT Mumbai held that it is settled legal position that when income is estimated, then there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
ITAT, held that if assessee voluntarily declares income during a survey and later includes it in their regular income tax return, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed.
ITAT Pune held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act duly leviable in case the additional income is disclosed in ITR filed u/s 153A and such additional income is originated out of seized material.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not imposable when income is assessed on estimate basis and accordingly additions are made therein on estimate basis.
ITAT Delhi held that to burden assessee with capital gain arising out of transfer of immovable property or an interest in it, the cost of acquisition is necessarily to be established. Here, cost of acquisition of so called right of preemption is considered as NIL. Hence, computation provisions fail, therefore capital gains could not have been calculated.
ITAT Delhi held that hollow and cosmetic approval accorded under section 153D of the Income Tax Act without application of mind is unenforceable in law and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as addition made on account of meager amount and on account of difference of opinion only.
