Income Tax : Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculati...
Income Tax : Grounds of Appeal related to the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , 1961 AY 2015-16 1. In the facts and circumstances of t...
Income Tax : Learn about the penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act of 1961 for various defaults and offenses. Find out the fines ...
Income Tax : Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against...
Income Tax : Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecu...
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 : ITAT Mumbai removes penalty imposed on Sunil Bhagwandas Vorani (HUF) as addition was made on estimation basis, not due to concealm...
Income Tax : Explore the detailed ITAT Mumbai order analysis of Yogesh P. Thakkar vs DCIT, focusing on disputed long-term capital gains and com...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Mumbai order in the case of Krimesh Ramesh Divecha Vs DCIT for A.Y. 2015-16. Understand the assessm...
Income Tax : Delhi HC: No penalty for New Holland Tractors if assessee's contention was plausible and bona fide, provided full disclosure of fa...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Grey Orange India Pvt. Ltd., allowing income tax deduction on warranty expenses. Detailed analysis of...
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...
Explore the confusion surrounding Section 271(1)(c) penalty in PCIT Vs Modi Rubber Ltd. (Delhi High Court). Lack of clarity on concealment or inaccurate particulars raises questions.
Explore the Delhi High Court’s judgment in PCIT Vs Unitech Reliable Projects regarding Section 271(1)(c) penalties. The court emphasizes the necessity of specifying the relevant limb in penalty proceedings.
Delve into Delhi High Court’s judgment on PCIT Vs Minu Bakshi, exploring penalty imposition, notice specifics, and impact on income tax cases.
PCIT vs. Minu Bakshi: Delhi High Court Clarifies No Penalty if notice for the imposition of penalty did not specify particular limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was levied.
CIT (Exemptions) Vs Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation, Delhi High Court emphasized that penalty notice must specify precise limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty is imposed.
ITAT has deleted the entire addition and disallowance based for imposition of penalty, the penalty imposed so cannot continue and therefore, deserves to be deleted in full with reference to aforesaid the addition & disallowance.
In PCIT Vs Bhudeva Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court emphasized that notices for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must explicitly specify grounds for penalty imposition.
Explore the Delhi High Court judgment on Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act for AY 2014-15. Detailed analysis and legal insights on inaccurate particulars. Read more.
ITAT Jaipur held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the ground and default on the part of the assessee and also without specifying the undisclosed income on which penalty was proposed to be levied is unsustainable-in-law.
Explore the legal battle of Shadawal Enterprises vs CIT in ITAT Mumbai. Analysis of unexplained expenses, eviction, and conclusion. Learn about the crucial remand for a fair decision
