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...
Explore the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in Texmat Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO regarding the upheld penalty for the assessee bogus short-term capital loss claim.
ITAT ruled that when sales are not in doubt, then 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be made and relied on Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs M. Haji Adam & Co Income Tax Appeal No.1004 of 2016 dated 11/2/2019.
In absence of any findings in assessment order regarding underreporting or misreporting of income, PCIT cannot revise assessment order to initiate penalty proceedings.
Deduction reduced on account of interpretative process cannot per se be equated with furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Ganesh Jagannath Choukse Vs ACIT (ITAT Nagpur) This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 29/05/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee has filed return on, 15.05.2013 declaring income of Rs.15,83,910/-. […]
Explore the ITAT Mumbai decision in Abacus International Pte Ltd. vs. DDIT, where notional interest income on interest-free loans was assessed and its impact on penalty u/s. 271(1)(c).
Explore the case of Ranjit D. Rathod vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) where penalty proceedings were contested due to assessment discrepancies. Detailed analysis and conclusions provided.
Explore the case of Hasmukhrai A. Jobanputra vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot), addressing differences in cash balances. Detailed analysis of additions, penalties, and conclusions provided.
No penalty u/s.271(1)(c) can be imposed in respect of inadvertent and bona fide mistake committed by the assessee.
ACIT Vs Rameshbhai Jivrajbhai Desai (ITAT Ahmedabad) During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order passed under Section 153A of the Act was held to be void ab initio and thus there is no addition in the […]
