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 : Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since sta...
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 : 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...
NBK Infrastructure P. Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 held that when the additions are made on estimate basis that by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his […]
Sharda Educational Trust Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Bench is of firm view that the foundation of issuing show cause notice for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, being crumbled by a verdict of this Tribunal, by deletion of additions, the penalty order alone cannot stand by its own against the assessee. Reliance in this […]
ITO Vs Ashif Mehbbobelahi Rushnaiwala (ITAT Ahmedabad) CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied on the disallowance of exemption u/s 54F of the Act noting that the assessee had furnished all particulars relating to the claim of exemption by way of investment in residential properties, that the claim was made under the boanfide belief that all investment […]
ITAT held that when addition was made on estimation basis that by itself does not lead to conclusion that assessee either concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.
Shri Himanshu Prafulchandra Varia Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) We find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the failure to disclose the income was by mistake and not deliberate and the assessee had in fact come clean during assessment proceedings before the Revenue authorities even before detection by the Revenue. […]
It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the notice dated 25.02.2013 issued u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not legally sustainable as it is not disclosed as to if the notice is issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of particular income.
Criminal proceedings justified on account of wilful and deliberate concealment of true and correct income by not filing the return of income within the time stipulated
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.
