![Disallowance Restricted to 12.5% in Quantum Appeal: ITAT Deletes Penalty Citing Faulty Charge [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/10/16/500x300_2097123-itat-mumbai-disallowance-penalty-taxscan.webp "Disallowance Restricted to 12.5% in Quantum Appeal: ITAT Deletes Penalty Citing Faulty Charge [Read Order]")
Disallowance Restricted to 12.5% in Quantum Appeal: ITAT Deletes Penalty Citing Faulty Charge [Read Order]
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, noting a...
![Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act Requires Verification of Loss: ITAT Orders Re-Examination [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/09/23/250x150_2090163-tat-mumbai-income-tax-act-penalty-taxscanjpge.webp "Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act Requires Verification of Loss: ITAT Orders Re-Examination [Read Order]")
![Relief to Aircel Ltd: Madras HC quashes Income tax Penalty Proceedings as No hearing Granted, Hardly 24 Hrs Granted to Furnish Reply [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/29/250x150_2070282-aircel-ltd-taxscan.webp "Relief to Aircel Ltd: Madras HC quashes Income tax Penalty Proceedings as No hearing Granted, Hardly 24 Hrs Granted to Furnish Reply [Read Order]")
![Deduction Claim on Unpaid Ad-hoc Bonus from AY 1984-85: Bombay HC Quashes ₹12L Income Tax Penalty from 2002 ITAT Order citing Plausibility [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/14/250x150_2063729-deduction-deduction-claim-deduction-claim-on-unpaid-ad-hoc-bonus-ad-hoc-bonus-taxscan.webp "Deduction Claim on Unpaid Ad-hoc Bonus from AY 1984-85: Bombay HC Quashes ₹12L Income Tax Penalty from 2002 ITAT Order citing Plausibility [Read Order]")
Defective Income Tax Notice Invalidates S. 271(1)(C) Proceedings: ITAT Deletes Penalty [Read Order]
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside a penalty of Rs. 13,44,580 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, citing the defective income tax notice...
![Defective Income Tax Notice Invalidates S. 271(1)(C) Proceedings: ITAT Deletes Penalty [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/25/500x300_2054276-penalty-income-tax-act-imposed-for-mistake-by-accountant-itat-taxscan.webp "Defective Income Tax Notice Invalidates S. 271(1)(C) Proceedings: ITAT Deletes Penalty [Read Order]")
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Invalid Without Clear Specification of Grounds in Notice: Delhi HC [Read Order]
The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be sustained if the notice issued does not clearly specify the ground, whether...
![Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Invalid Without Clear Specification of Grounds in Notice: Delhi HC [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Income-Tax-Penalty.jpg "Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Invalid Without Clear Specification of Grounds in Notice: Delhi HC [Read Order]")
‘Clear-Cut Case of Concealment’: ITAT Upholds Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) for Rs 2.65 Crore Bogus Share Capital [Reaed Order]
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld a penalty of Rs. 95,10,463 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the assessee, UGS Finance Pvt. Ltd....
![‘Clear-Cut Case of Concealment’: ITAT Upholds Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) for Rs 2.65 Crore Bogus Share Capital [Reaed Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Clear-Cut-Case-Concealment-ITAT-Penalty-Under-Bogus-Share-Capital-TAXSCAN.jpg "‘Clear-Cut Case of Concealment’: ITAT Upholds Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) for Rs 2.65 Crore Bogus Share Capital [Reaed Order]")
![Taxpayer Underreports Income by Claiming Inadmissible Expenses: ITAT Confirms Penalty [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Penalty-Taxpayer-ITAT-Confirms-Penalty-Taxscan.jpg "Taxpayer Underreports Income by Claiming Inadmissible Expenses: ITAT Confirms Penalty [Read Order]")
ITAT sets aside Penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) as Demonstrates Sufficient Cause for 326 Day Delay in Quantum Appeal and 1 Delay in Penalty Appeal [Read Order]
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the assessee demonstrated "sufficient cause" for...
![ITAT sets aside Penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) as Demonstrates Sufficient Cause for 326 Day Delay in Quantum Appeal and 1 Delay in Penalty Appeal [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/ITAT-Penalty-Demonstrates-Sufficient-Cause-Quantum-Appeal-Penalty-Appeal-taxscan.jpg "ITAT sets aside Penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) as Demonstrates Sufficient Cause for 326 Day Delay in Quantum Appeal and 1 Delay in Penalty Appeal [Read Order]")
Taxpayer is Co-Owner of Bank Account, No Concealment of Income: ITAT deletes penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of Income Tax Act [Read Order]
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 observing that there is no concealment of income ...
![Taxpayer is Co-Owner of Bank Account, No Concealment of Income: ITAT deletes penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of Income Tax Act [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ITAT-Income-tax-appellate-tribunal-income-tax-act-income-tax-Tax-news-TAXSCAN.jpg "Taxpayer is Co-Owner of Bank Account, No Concealment of Income: ITAT deletes penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of Income Tax Act [Read Order]")