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 Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as denial of claim of deduction u/s 80HH/ 80IA doesn’t tantamount to concealment of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
In the case of Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, the ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, declaring the final assessment order void due to failure to comply with mandatory procedure u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act.
In the case of Goldline Dealers Pvt Ltd vs. ITO, ITAT Kolkata directs re-adjudication due to incomplete investigation & application of mind on the issue of Addition for Share Capital & Premium. Read the full text of the ITAT order.
Gujarat High Court held that penalty not imposable as excess depreciation claimed was surrendered by the assessee without prior detection of the Revenue and such excess claim was made due to bonafide reasons.
In-depth analysis of the recent Delhi High Court judgement in PCLT Vs Gopal Kumar Goyal, leading to a quashed 300% penalty imposed by the AO due to lack of clear indication on violation of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT has held in the case of Meera Anirudha Mirgunde Vs ITO that when there is no variation in the returned and assessable income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not leviable.
Read the full text of the order of ITAT Jaipur in the case of Lalit Kumar Kalwar Vs ITO. The quantum appeal is allowed, and the deduction under Section 54F is granted, resulting in the penalty being vacated.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unsecured loan under section 68 of the Income Tax Act sustained as assessee failed to discharge the primary onus and burden of proof of providing genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of creditors to the satisfaction of the A.O.
The ITAT Delhi nullifies the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on Meena Singhal, as the notice issued did not specify the particular charge.
ITAT Pune has set aside an NFAC order in the Kongnoli Sarva Seva Society Ltd vs ITO case. The ruling established that incorrect claims of deductions or expenses in ITR does not equate to the concealment of income
