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 : Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since sta...
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 : 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 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.
ITAT Delhi held that revenue receipt generated from the operation of “Hotel/ Resort” is taxable under the head “Business income” and not under “House Property” as fixed amount was not received in fact revenue was generated on fluctuation basis.
Calcutta High Court held that show cause notice not specifying the charge against the assessee is bad-in-law. Accordingly, initiation of the penalty proceedings is vitiated.
ITAT Delhi held that failure to call for DVO report and discrediting the valuation report of the assessee without substantial reasons is unsustainable and bad in law.
ITAT Delhi held that as assessee disclosed all the material facts relating to payment of non-compete fee, assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not leviable.
ITAT Bangalore held that pre-clinical laboratory services rendered by the assessee (non-resident) to its customers in India would not be chargeable to tax in India as the technical services rendered by the affiliates do not “make available” technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process while preparing these reports for their, Indian customers/ clients.
Read about the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision to allow a writ petition challenging a penalty order that violated the principles of natural justice. Get a comprehensive analysis of the case and its implications.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that making of incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that assessee failed furnish any evidences to prove that there are negotiations between assessee and AEs with regard to marketing strategy, sales targets, credit period, etc. Accordingly, TPO/AO has rightly bench marked payment of agency commission as ‘nil’.
ITAT Delhi holds in the Sabharwal Food Industries Vs DCIT case that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied simply because a claim was not accepted. Discover more about this landmark ruling.
