Income Tax : This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences ...
Income Tax : This article outlines major penalties under the Income-tax Act for defaults involving tax payments, return filing, TDS compliance,...
Income Tax : A comprehensive guide to penalty provisions under the Income-tax Act covering defaults in returns, tax payments, TDS, audits, tran...
Income Tax : Section 271AAB penalties will not apply to searches initiated under Section 132 after September 1, 2024, as per the Finance Bill, ...
Income Tax : Penalty under Section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act is not applicable for searches after 1st September 2024, replaced by Section 15...
Income Tax : Section 271AAB provides for imposition of penalty at specified rates where search has been initiated. The rate of penalty varies...
Income Tax : Section 271AAB provides for imposition of penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income found during the course of search and admitted at t...
Income Tax : Present scheme of administration of Search and Assessment of search cases needs to be made effective to reduce technical complexit...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that a penalty notice under Section 271AAB must clearly specify the applicable statutory limb and charge. As t...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that a penalty notice lacking a specific allegation of under-reporting, misreporting, or the applicable clause ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271AAB cannot survive where the show cause notice fails to specify the exact statutory ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to record a clear and consci...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that penalty under Section 270A could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to clearly distinguish b...
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB could not be levied because no incriminating documents were found during the search. It ruled that mere surrender of income does not constitute undisclosed income under the statutory definition.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied without specifying whether the case involved under-reporting or misreporting of income. The AO issued a 200% penalty without identifying the statutory limb or giving reasons. Since the order lacked satisfaction and reasoning, the penalty was quashed.
ITAT Bangalore confirmed that income admitted under Section 132(4) constitutes undisclosed income under Section 271AAB. The assessee’s claim of voluntary disclosure to avoid litigation was rejected, validating the ₹30 lakh penalty.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted a ₹22.21 lakh penalty under Section 271AAB, ruling that the show-cause notice was defective for not specifying the charge. The Tribunal also held that mere stock valuation differences and an already offered cash investment do not qualify as “undisclosed income” under the section’s strict definition.
The ITAT deleted penalties under both Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A, ruling that merely making a bona fide but ultimately unsustainable tax claim under the India-UK DTAA does not attract a penalty. The Tribunal held that a difference in legal interpretation, especially in complex international tax issues, does not constitute concealment or misreporting of income.
The ITAT Mumbai, in Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani Vs ITO, deleted penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for notional income from house property, holding that penalty requires actual concealment, not notional additions.
The ITAT Chandigarh ruled that a show cause notice was defective and invalid, leading to the deletion of a penalty imposed on G.S. Auto Comp Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Kolkata rules that a penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be levied if no search has been initiated on the assessee, even if a statement is made under Section 131.
The ITAT Delhi has deleted a penalty imposed by the CIT(A), ruling that the CIT(A) did not have the jurisdiction to change the nature of a penalty from Section 271AAB to 271(1)(c).
The ITAT Chandigarh ruled that a penalty notice without a specific charge is invalid, leading to the deletion of a penalty under Section 271AAB.
