#Bona Fide Mistake

ITAT Ahmedabad sets aside a 200% penalty under Section 270A, holding that a mere arithmetical omission in capital loss adjustment-without intent to suppress income-does not constitute misreporting. The ruling clarifies that penalties under Section 270A require proof of willful misreporting, not inadvertent errors, impacting tax consultants and assessees facing similar scrutiny.

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail where a property sale deed mistakenly listed a living person as deceased, emphasizing that mere clerical error, promptly corrected without fraudulent intent, does not attract charges under Sections 464-471 of the BNS. This ruling clarifies that procedural inaccuracies in land records, absent malice or deception, cannot be criminalized under forgery provisions, protecting innocent families from arbitrary arrest.

CESTAT Chennai reduces redemption fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 112(a) of the Customs Act, holding that importers acting in good faith based on supplier documents cannot be penalized for misdeclaration beyond their actual role. The ruling establishes that liability must reflect the degree of culpability, offering relief to importers facing disproportionate penalties.

ITAT Mumbai sets aside a ₹6.17 lakh penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ruling that inadvertent computational errors-even if leading to underreported income-do not constitute furnishing 'inaccurate particulars' absent fraudulent intent. The decision reinforces that penalties under the provision require proof of deliberate concealment, offering relief to taxpayers and tax professionals.