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 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 : The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscio...
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...
Manjulata Sahoo Vs PCIT (ITAT Cuttack) It was the submission that against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has filed appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court of Orissa and the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa was pleased to admit the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.8 of 2021 vide order dated […]
Non-specification of limb of the notice would render section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings invalid. ITAT held that notice u/s 271(1)(c) is omnibus notice, thus defective which goes to the root of the matter. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act alleging inaccurate particulars not leviable as assessee was subjected to tax on book profits u/s 115JB.
ITAT Mumbai deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act as penalty order was issued without striking off the irrelevant limb/ inapplicable words.
Pankajkumar Babulal Tiwari Vs ACIT (ITAT Amhadabad) Asessee under the bona fide belief not offered income on receipt from LIC in original return however rectified the same while filing the return under section 148 of the Act. The assessee also paid due tax on such receipt even before issuance of notice under section 148 of […]
ITAT Mumbai held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without informing the charges framed for initiation of the same via statutory notice renders the entire proceeding inacceptable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable on account of human error committed by the accountant as the same is not willful attempt to conceal income.
ITAT Delhi CIT(A) directed to accept the additional evidence and submission and pass the order after granting adequate personal hearing as there was reasonable cause of ailment that prevented assessee to supply documents and replies.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that depreciation on goodwill duly available as goodwill has been taken into account while determining the face value of the shares which is treated as consideration in the scheme of amalgamation.
ITAT Cochin held that as per condition mentioned in section 54F deduction is not available if the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset. The same should be interpreted to mean ownership of residential houses in India. Accordingly, deduction u/s. 54F not deniable if assessee owns two residential houses in USA
