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 case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
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...
The ruling clarifies that once a reassessment return is accepted, earlier returns lose relevance for penalty purposes. In the absence of defects in the reassessment return, penalty cannot survive.
The issue was whether penalty could be levied despite disclosure of undisclosed income during search. The Tribunal held that when the assessee explains the manner of earning income and pays due tax, no penalty is leviable.
The issue was whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when bogus purchases are disallowed on an estimated basis. The Tribunal held that estimation does not establish concealment, making the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot survive where sales were already offered to tax and later added again under section 68. The key takeaway is that double taxation cannot result in penalty when no tax was sought to be evaded.
The Tribunal condoned a 506-day delay after accepting that the appeal was filed only when heavy penalty exposure created prosecution risk. The key takeaway is that bona fide reliance on legal advice and later developments can constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
The reassessment was challenged for lacking approval from the correct authority under Section 151 after three years. The Tribunal held that sanction by an incorrect authority vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void.
The case examined penalty levied on estimated additions and statutory disallowance. The Tribunal held that neither category amounts to concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The issue was whether a penalty can survive when the notice does not specify the exact charge. The Tribunal held that a vague notice vitiates the entire penalty proceedings, even where AMT liability exists.
The issue was whether retaining both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) in the notice renders the penalty void. The Tribunal ruled that failure to strike off the inapplicable limb vitiates the proceedings. Penalties must be founded on precise allegations.
This case involved reassessment completed without serving the mandatory scrutiny notice. The Tribunal ruled that such omission is not a curable defect and invalidates the proceedings. The decision reinforces strict adherence to statutory safeguards.
