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...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be imposed when the assessment order lacks recorded satisfaction of a 26...
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 case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when identical facts in earlier years led to deletion. ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that penalty proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer does not specify whether the charge is concealment ...
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 Mumbai sets aside income tax penalties on an MTNL employee, citing no additions in reassessment and the discretionary nature of penalty imposition under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A.
Bombay High Court dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming that income tax penalty notices must clearly specify grounds of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Calcutta High Court hears appeal on the validity of tax penalties under Section 271(1)(c), specifically if show-cause notices lacking specific grounds are invalid. The case involves the Thakur Prasad Sao Group.
ITAT Delhi considers penalty for alleged inaccurate income particulars concerning a Section 54F exemption claim, with conflicting views on concealment versus incorrect claim.
ITAT Pune cancels Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Vikas Jayram Bhukan, citing a defective notice that failed to specify the charge, referencing Bombay High Court precedents.
ITAT Lucknow quashes Rs. 3.34 Lakh penalty on Mohd Husain, citing lack of fair opportunity by tax authorities and improper notice delivery. Case sent for re-adjudication.
ITAT Delhi held penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unsustainable as 54F exemption failed due to builder delay, not taxpayer’s fault. Full disclosure helped avoid penalty.
Delhi ITAT sets aside penalty on Globus Infocom for non-compliance, citing AO’s own records and a crucial precedent on Section 143(3) assessments.
Delhi ITAT set aside penalties against Delhi Building & Others for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09, citing the Assessing Officer’s failure to specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
ITAT Surat deleted a Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Gunjan Agarwal, ruling that an addition based on estimated income does not automatically imply concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
