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 Kolkata held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as computation of income resulting into higher income is only a difference of opinion.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on a highly debatable issue is unsustainable in law.
In the present case, the very addition in the declared income has been deleted by the Tribunal therefore, there is no foundation to compute the penalty upon the assessee. In view of the deletion of the additions in the quantum appeal, no penalty is imposable upon the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that compensation paid by the builder for facing hardship during redevelopment of flats is in nature of capital receipts and accordingly not liable to tax.
Penalty order did not specify the charge & penalty was imposed purely on the basis of estimation of income so not valid
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as assessee claimed the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to the interest income under a bonafide belief.
ITAT held that when the notices issued by the AO are bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable.
ITAT Hyderabad in case of excess stock of gold found during survey held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act up to 100% of the tax evaded is justified instead of 298% as upheld by CIT(A).
ITAT Allahabad held that additions made based on the incriminating material (being excess stock) found during survey conducted u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act is justifiable.
Assessee must be informed of grounds of penalty proceedings through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from vice of vagueness
