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 Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, an...
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 : 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 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
ITAT Ahmedabad held that when application of income is more than receipts of year, excess application of income i.e., expenditure in the hands of the assessee can be carried forward to succeeding Year.
The ITAT in Mumbai cancels penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in the case of Fancy Diamonds India Pvt Ltd. The tribunal held that such penalties aren’t applicable when additions are made purely on estimation
ITAT Ahmedabad held that no penalty can be imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of expenses incurred for increase of authorized share capital since no penalty can be imposed when there was no willful concealment.
ITAT Pune held that imposition of penalty under section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb within which the penalty is imposed is unsustainable. Failure of AO to quote any of the six sub-limbs as prescribed u/s 270A(9) makes imposition of penalty unsustainable
In the case of N.B. Builders & Promoters (P) Ltd Vs CIT, ITAT Chandigarh held that penalties cannot be imposed for mere lower gross profit based on assumptions and conjectures.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment, in the exercise of powers under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act, without tangible material to conclude that income had escaped assessment is untenable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee is eligible to claim exemption u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act as the construction of residential house completed within three years from the relevant date.
Detailed analysis of the ITAT Delhi judgement in Kamlesh Gupta Vs DCIT case where the tribunal ruled that addition made on estimated profit does not constitute concealment, hence, no penalty.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that mere estimate of cost by Departmental Valuer could not constitute material to concealment and therefore levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not valid.
