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 Kolkata held that addition on account of lesser amount considered as claw back payment unsustained as in case, a higher amount is to be considered as claw back payment, then a higher amount is to be allowed as a deduction not character of income
ITAT Jaipur in Yogendra Khandelwal Vs ACIT, mandates re-adjudication for penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) without adequate hearing.
ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not applicable when an assessee doesn’t furnish inaccurate income details. This ruling was made in the case of Khanpur Vibhag Madhyamik Shala Karmchari Dhiran & Grahak Sahakari Mandali Limited Vs ACIT
ITAT Mumbai held that recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where date of agreement fixing amount of consideration for transfer of property and ate of registration is not same, the stamp duty value on the date of allotment is to be taken.
Balwant Baburao Vitekar (Late) vs ITO (ITAT Pune) where the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was challenged. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that the assessee was not given the opportunity to assist in the penalty proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that if a matter is restored to AO for passing a rectification order, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act does not survive. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty order.
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.
