Income Tax : Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifica...
Income Tax : Appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(b) citing ill health, lack of awareness of Faceless Scheme, and procedural lapses. Req...
Income Tax : Section 115BBE imposes a high tax rate on unexplained income to prevent tax evasion. Learn about tax rates, penalties, and complia...
Income Tax : Income Tax Act amendments propose penalties by Assessing Officers instead of Joint Commissioners. Omission of section 271BB and ch...
Income Tax : From April 2025, Section 275 amendments standardize the penalty timeline to six months from the end of the quarter in which procee...
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 : In view of Indiscriminate notices by income Tax Department without allowing reasonable time it is requested to Finance Ministry an...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on estimated GP additions for alleged bogus purchases in Om Sai Traders case f...
Income Tax : ITAT Surat remands penalty case under Section 271B to AO, ruling that bank transactions alone cannot determine turnover. Fresh con...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules that debatable tax claims made in good faith do not warrant penalties under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act....
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that that mens rea is not an essential condition for imposing penalties under civil acts. Penalty u/s. 270A of...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashes penalty on Babu Ram u/s 271(1)(c) as barred by limitation. Penalty order dated April 1, 2022, violated extended...
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...
ITAT Agra deletes penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) in Ganeshi Lal Narayan Das vs DCIT, citing procedural fairness and assessees bona fide belief. Full text order included.
xplore DCIT Vs Polyplex Corp. Limited case. Learn why penalty for disallowed tax claim isn’t justified. Details & key takeaways here.
Can penalty under Section 271(1)(c) be imposed if self-assessment tax was paid before notice u/s 148? Read the detailed analysis of Smt. Kavita Sachdev Vs ITO (ITAT Indore).
The NFRA fines Shridhar & Associates and CA Ajay Vastani for professional misconduct in auditing RCFL’s financials for FY 2018-19.
Detailed analysis of the appeal against a penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act by the ITAT Delhi in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Goyal vs ITO, including the reasons for the penalty dismissal.
ITAT Chennai observed that differences in valuation opinions are common, and the assessee’s claim based on an approved valuer’s report cannot be deemed as concealment of income. Citing precedents from the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, the ITAT ruled that an incorrect claim in law does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT observed that the disallowance of expenses by the AO was on an estimate and ad hoc basis due to the absence of supporting evidence, rather than evidence of concealment of income. Referring to legal precedents, the ITAT emphasized that disallowance based on the magnitude of expenses or missing vouchers is insufficient to justify a penalty, especially without evidence of mala fide intent.
ITAT Mumbai rules penalty under Section 270A deleted as I-T authority failed to consider reasons for difference in sale consideration and stamp duty valuation.
Tribunal ruled that mere disallowance of expenses or enhancement of returned income does not automatically warrant the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c)
Analysis of ITAT Hyderabad’s ruling on a penalty order, questioning misreporting of income when the issue was under-reporting, in Mohd. Sarwar Vs ITO case.
