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, held that if assessee voluntarily declares income during a survey and later includes it in their regular income tax return, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed.
ITAT Pune held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act duly leviable in case the additional income is disclosed in ITR filed u/s 153A and such additional income is originated out of seized material.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not imposable when income is assessed on estimate basis and accordingly additions are made therein on estimate basis.
ITAT Delhi held that to burden assessee with capital gain arising out of transfer of immovable property or an interest in it, the cost of acquisition is necessarily to be established. Here, cost of acquisition of so called right of preemption is considered as NIL. Hence, computation provisions fail, therefore capital gains could not have been calculated.
ITAT Delhi held that hollow and cosmetic approval accorded under section 153D of the Income Tax Act without application of mind is unenforceable in law and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as addition made on account of meager amount and on account of difference of opinion only.
ITAT Bangalore held that any proceedings taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative. However, penalty order passed in the name of death person after his death is invalid.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as entire addition is made on estimation basis and at no point of time it is proved that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Delhi deletes penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income/filing inaccurate particulars in Babita Khurana vs DCIT case. Detailed analysis and ruling provided.
M.A. Projects Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT note that the notice is an omnibus notice without specifying the specific charge upon the assessee and in such circumstances, Higher Courts have held that penalty levied is not sustainable. In this regard, we refer to Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the […]
