Income Tax Penalty

Football & Income Tax- Penalty, in both, is Hefty

Income Tax - Arjuna, while playing on the Football Ground if, a player pushes other players or creates any obstruction then the referee whistles and show a Yellow Card. Yellow Card represents a mild penalty. If you look at Income Tax, the taxpayers are intimated by a prior notice and thereafter a penalty is levied...

Read More

Avoid Heavy Penalty: Ensure Timely Filing of Tax Return

Income Tax - Where a person required to furnish a return of income under Section 139, fails to do so within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of said section, he shall pay, by way of fee, a sum of- (a) Five thousand rupees, if the return is furnished on or before the 31st day of December of the assessment year; (b) Ten thousand rupees, in any oth...

Read More

Penalty on CA & professionals for incorrect report or certificate

Income Tax - It is proposed to insert a new section 271J so as to provide that if an accountant or a merchant banker or a registered valuer, furnishes incorrect information in a report or certificate under any provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct him to pay a sum of ten thou...

Read More

Validity of Penalty Notice- Continuing Saga

Income Tax - The Bombay High Court has in its order dated 12th June, 2020 in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd (ITA No.958/2017) has given a fresh perspective to the controversy of validity of penalty notice under section 271(1)(c). In the past the courts have held that if the show cause notice proposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) do not clearly s...

Read More

Beginning of a new penalty era – Section 270A

Income Tax - New penalty law was inserted vide section 270A under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') which is based on under-reporting and misreporting of income, replacing the erstwhile basis of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income....

Read More

Section 234F Fee for delayed filing of return causing undue hardship

Income Tax - The Finance Bill, 2017 proposes to levy fees of Rs.5,000 in case where return is furnished after the due date but on or before 31St December of the relevant assessment year and Rs.10,000, in other cases. However, it is also proposed to restrict the fees to Rs.1,000, where the total income does not exceed five lakh rupees....

Read More

Prescribing One Year Time Limit for Disposal of Petitions for Waiver of Penalty/ Interest U/s. 273A, 273AA and 220(2A)

Income Tax - Recommendations For Prescribing Time Limit Of One Year For Disposal Of Petitions For Waiver Of Penalty And Interest Under Sections 273A, 273AA and 220(2A) Whereas, a time limit of 1 year for disposal of a tax payer’s Revision Petition u/s. 264 has been prescribed, there is no such time limit for disposal of Petitions for […]...

Read More

CVC advises major penalty against 15 officers from Central Board of Excise & Customs

Income Tax - THE Central Vigilance Commission disposed of 1266 cases during April 2010 referred to it for advice. The Commission advised imposition of major penalty against 99 officers including 15 from Central Board of Excise & Customs, 13 from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, 11 from Coal India Ltd., 8 from M/o Railways, 7 each from UCO Bank and Bank...

Read More

Penalty of Rs. One Lakh on Excise officer for recovery during stay period

Income Tax - In the case of M/s Galaxy Indo Fab. Limited Vs. Union of India and others since the appeal could not be decided within a period of 180 days, the M/s Galaxy Indo Fab. Limited (petitioner) moved a miscellaneous application for extension of the stay order. The Tribunal vide order dated 14.8.2008 extended the stay order, already granted, til...

Read More

CVC advised imposition of major penalty against 66 Government Employees including six officials from Central Board of Excise and Custom

Income Tax - THE CVC had disposed off 468 cases during December 2009 referred to it for advice. The Commission advised initiations of major penalty proceedings against 70 officers. Of these, 20 were from public sector banks, 17 from M/o Railways, 11 from Northern Coalfields Ltd., 4 from Western Coalfields Ltd., 3 from MCD, 2 each from Ministry of Home...

Read More

No section 271E penalty if payments were genuine & duly accounted

Sudha Agro Oil & Chemical Industries Limited Vs Add. CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) - Penalty under section 271E for violation of provision of section 269T could not be levied as assessee-company repaid loans advances otherwise than by crossed cheque, however, it substantiated with relevant documents that all the payments made by it were genuine and all the creditors accounted the lo...

Read More

ITAT Deletes section 271C Penalty for Failure to Deduct TDS on LTA

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) - The issue under consideration is whether the penalty u/s 271C levied due to failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) on LTA paid to employee is justified in law?...

Read More

Mere Rejection of section 35D claim not amounts to Concealment of Income

DCIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) - DCIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of expenses made u/s.35D? ITAT states that, the assessee claimed deduction of preliminary expenses u/s 35D which was rejected by Ld.A...

Read More

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty proceedings not sustainable if not specifies Limb

Balaji Telefilms Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) - Balaji Telefilms Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without specifying the limb will be sustain under law? ITAT states that, it has been held by Hon’ble Court that the notice would have to specifically state the ground ment...

Read More

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty Justified if Assessee not Acted Bonafidely

Gangotri Textiles Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Madras High Court) - Gangotri Textiles Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Madras High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the assessing officer is justified in law? In the present case, the assessee did not disclose about the sale of the lands and windmill in the return of income, which was c...

Read More

Limitation for penalty proceedings U/s. 271D & 271E

Circular No. 10/2016-Income Tax - (26/04/2016) - It is a settled position that period of limitation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the limitation period for the imposition of penalty under these provisions would be the expiry of the financial y...

Read More

Limitation commencement for penalty proceedings U/s. 271D &271E

Circular No. 09/DV/2016 (Departmental View) - (26/04/2016) - It has been brought to notice of CBDT that there are conflicting interpretations of various High Courts on the issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Income tax Act, 1961commences at the level of the Assessing Officer (below the rank of Joint Commi...

Read More

Recent Posts in "Income Tax Penalty"

No section 271E penalty if payments were genuine & duly accounted

Sudha Agro Oil & Chemical Industries Limited Vs Add. CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Penalty under section 271E for violation of provision of section 269T could not be levied as assessee-company repaid loans advances otherwise than by crossed cheque, however, it substantiated with relevant documents that all the payments made by it were genuine and all the creditors accounted the loans as well as the repayments in their b...

Read More

Football & Income Tax- Penalty, in both, is Hefty

Arjuna, while playing on the Football Ground if, a player pushes other players or creates any obstruction then the referee whistles and show a Yellow Card. Yellow Card represents a mild penalty. If you look at Income Tax, the taxpayers are intimated by a prior notice and thereafter a penalty is levied...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

ITAT Deletes section 271C Penalty for Failure to Deduct TDS on LTA

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

The issue under consideration is whether the penalty u/s 271C levied due to failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) on LTA paid to employee is justified in law?...

Read More

Mere Rejection of section 35D claim not amounts to Concealment of Income

DCIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

DCIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of expenses made u/s.35D? ITAT states that, the assessee claimed deduction of preliminary expenses u/s 35D which was rejected by Ld.AO in terms of decision of Hon’ble Madr...

Read More

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty proceedings not sustainable if not specifies Limb

Balaji Telefilms Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Balaji Telefilms Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without specifying the limb will be sustain under law? ITAT states that, it has been held by Hon’ble Court that the notice would have to specifically state the ground mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act na...

Read More

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty Justified if Assessee not Acted Bonafidely

Gangotri Textiles Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Madras High Court)

Gangotri Textiles Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Madras High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the assessing officer is justified in law? In the present case, the assessee did not disclose about the sale of the lands and windmill in the return of income, which was clear from the perusal […]...

Read More

No section 271B Penalty for Not Getting Books Audited if Reasonable Cause exist

Shree Balaji Construction Vs DCIT (ITAT Indore)

whether assessee can be held liable u/s 271B of the Act for not getting the books audited during the years when the advances were received from customers under percentage completion method?...

Read More

No section 271(1)(c) penalty for mere discrepancies Found during Survey

Rajendra Shringi Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Rajendra Shringi Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is justified in law? ITAT states that no doubt, the discrepancies were found during the survey. This has yielded income from the assessee in the form of amount surrendered by the assessee. Presently, ITAT are not concerne...

Read More

No section 271(1)(c) Penalty Merely based on section 37 disallowance

DCIT Vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

The issue under consideration is whether the cancellation of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A) is justified in law?...

Read More

Avoid Heavy Penalty: Ensure Timely Filing of Tax Return

Where a person required to furnish a return of income under Section 139, fails to do so within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of said section, he shall pay, by way of fee, a sum of- (a) Five thousand rupees, if the return is furnished on or before the 31st day of December of the assessment year; (b) Ten thousand rupees, in any oth...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | ,

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,989)
Company Law (6,652)
Custom Duty (8,019)
DGFT (4,364)
Excise Duty (4,399)
Fema / RBI (4,405)
Finance (4,649)
Income Tax (34,749)
SEBI (3,718)
Service Tax (3,604)

Search Posts by Date

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031