Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles o...
Income Tax : The framework outlines penalties for defaults like under-reporting, TDS failures, and non-compliance, while allowing relief where ...
Income Tax : Furnishing incorrect crypto-asset information without rectification can attract a fixed penalty. The amendment strengthens account...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill, 2026 converts key penalties for audit and reporting delays into mandatory fees. The shift aims to reduce dispute...
Income Tax : The law now proposes a single consolidated assessment-cum-penalty order for under-reporting of income, reducing multiple proceedin...
Corporate Law : The Budget proposes a single integrated order for assessment and penalty to avoid parallel proceedings. The key takeaway is reduce...
Income Tax : Budget 2024 reduces penalty relief period for TDS/TCS statement filing from one year to one month. Changes effective April 2025....
Income Tax : New amendments to the Black Money Act from October 2024 raise the exemption threshold for penalties on foreign assets to ₹20 lak...
Income Tax : Discover the proposed changes to Section 275 of the Income-tax Act, eliminating ambiguity in penalty imposition timelines. Effecti...
CA, CS, CMA : People are held hostage in a cyber-world with ransom in the form of Late Fees and Interest and a threat to levy penalty or to init...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive once the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Se...
Income Tax : The ITAT Visakhapatnam reduced a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) from Rs.30,000 to Rs.10,000 after treating non-compliance with th...
Income Tax : The Jodhpur ITAT held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive where the Assessing Officer completed scrutiny asses...
Income Tax : The issue involved penalty on disallowance of lease premium deduction. The Tribunal held that admission of the issue by the High C...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held that mere differences in property valuation do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Penalty und...
Company Law : Penalty imposed on Cryo Scientific Systems for failure to maintain proper registers under Companies Act 2013. Learn more about the...
Company Law : The NFRA fines Shridhar & Associates and CA Ajay Vastani for professional misconduct in auditing RCFL's financials for FY 2018-19....
Income Tax : Order under Para 3 of the Faceless Penalty Scheme, 2021, for defining the scope of ‘Penalties’ to be assigned to the F...
Income Tax : It is a settled position that period of limitation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by th...
Income Tax : It has been brought to notice of CBDT that there are conflicting interpretations of various High Courts on the issue whether the l...
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive once the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) after accepting the assessee’s explanations and returned income.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam reduced a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) from Rs.30,000 to Rs.10,000 after treating non-compliance with three notices under Section 142(1) as a single default. The Tribunal granted partial relief while holding that the assessee failed to establish reasonable cause for non-compliance.
The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles of natural justice. Penalty proceedings were therefore held invalid and unsustainable.
The Jodhpur ITAT held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive where the Assessing Officer completed scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) after considering replies and documents furnished later by the assessee.
The issue involved penalty on disallowance of lease premium deduction. The Tribunal held that admission of the issue by the High Court made it debatable. It ruled that penalty cannot be imposed in such cases.
The Supreme Court held that mere differences in property valuation do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires proof of deliberate inaccuracy. The ruling clarifies that estimation disputes alone cannot justify penalty.
The Supreme Court upheld deletion of penalty where the dispute involved classification of subsidy as capital or revenue receipt. It ruled that such debatable issues do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reinforces limits on penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The High Court held that classification of grant-in-aid as capital or revenue is a debatable issue. It ruled that such classification disputes do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The issue involved validity of penalty proceedings initiated through an unsigned notice. The Tribunal ruled that such a notice is invalid and cannot confer jurisdiction. The decision highlights the mandatory requirement of proper authentication.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing the return due to pending probate proceedings was beyond the control of executors. It ruled that such delay constituted a bona fide explanation, leading to deletion of penalty under Section 270A.
