Income Tax Penalty - Page 20

No penalty for quoting wrong PAN if caused by negligence of deductee

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh Vs Superintendent of Police (Punjan And Haryana High Court at Chandigarh)

In the instant case, the ITO(TDS) while going through the quarterly return in Form No.26Q, filed by the assessee noted that it has omitted to quote PAN/had quoted invalid PAN in 196 cases. As regards the reasonable cause,it was pleaded on behalf of the assessee that TDS was deducted and deposited in time in government Treasury. The defaul...

Read More

S. 271A penalty justified for non maintenance of book of account U/s. 44AF

Ashok Kumar Varshney Vs Income-tax Officer, 3(4), Hathras (ITAT Agra)

According to section 271A, if the assessee fails to keep and maintain any such books of account and other documents as required by section 44AA and the Rules in any previous year, penalty is leviable. Section 44AA(2)(i) and (ii) provides that every person carrying on business shall keep and maintain such books of account and other documen...

Read More

Section 271D penalty cannot be imposed for business transactions in cash

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(1) Vs Forging Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

Assessee entered into a collaboration agreement with 'D' for purchase of land on its behalf and development thereof by 'D'. 'D' purchased land from farmers on behalf of the assessee through its agent 'J'. In lieu of the consideration paid by 'D' for purchase of land, its account was credited by way of journal entries. 'J' had made payment...

Read More

S. 272B – No Penalty for non production of Data at the time of survey for genuine reasons

ITO Vs Adinath Cooperative Bank Ltd. (Gujarat High Court)

The Tribunal while examining this issue went purely by the facts of the case and held that the difficulties in non-production of the documents as was required under the statute was on account of shifting of branch of the bank shortly before the date of the survey and afterwards within a period of two weeks they were furnished before the A...

Read More

Budget 2012 – Prosecution and imprisonment for Income Tax Evasion

The existing provisions of section 276C, 276CC, 277, 277A and section 278 of the Income-tax Act provide that in a case where the amount of tax, penalty or interest which would have been evaded by a person exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six mont...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | ,

Budget 2012 – Penalty on undisclosed income found during the course of search at 10 pc, 20 pc, 30 pc

It is proposed to provide that the provisions of section 271AAA will not be applicable for searches conducted on or after 1st July, 2012. It is also proposed to insert a new provision in the Act (section 271AAB) for levy of penalty in a case where search has been initiated on or after 1st July, 2012. The new section provides that,- ...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | ,

S. 271FA Penalty justified for delayed filing of AIR return without reasonable explanation

State of Rajasthan Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (CIB) (Rajasthan High Court)

It is noticed that the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under section 271FA on February 23, 2010, requiring him to attend his office on March 11, 2010, and show cause as to why the penalty under section 271FA should not have been imposed upon him for failure to file the annual information returns within the prescribed time. ...

Read More

Mere making a claim which is incorrect in law not amounts to giving inaccurate particulars

Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)

Penalty proceedings- Mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of income of assessee, but if claim besides being incorrect in law is malafide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) comes into play and work to disadvantage of assessee....

Read More

No Penalty for bonafide difference of opinion in selection of transfer pricing method

ACIT Vs. Firmenich Aromatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

The Tribunal ruling has reiterated the principle of 'bona fide difference of opinion' arising in the context of application of most appropriate transfer pricing method. The Tribunal has ruled that any addition to income arising as a result of bona fide difference of opinion cannot be used as a basis for levy of penalty....

Read More

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

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
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,718)
Company Law (7,654)
Custom Duty (8,702)
DGFT (4,620)
Excise Duty (4,526)
Fema / RBI (4,811)
Finance (5,176)
Income Tax (38,386)
SEBI (4,128)
Service Tax (3,776)

Search Posts by Date

September 2021