Income Tax : Explore how seizure of documents can impact audit deadlines under Section 44AB and defenses against Section 271B penalties for aud...
Finance : Learn about Section 270A introduced in Finance Act 2016, effective from April 1, 2017, outlining penalties for under-reporting and...
Income Tax : Explore why penalties should not be imposed on estimated income, supported by legal rulings and principles ensuring fair tax admin...
Income Tax : Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculati...
Income Tax : Grounds of Appeal related to the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , 1961 AY 2015-16 1. In the facts and circumstances of t...
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 Bangalore held penalty initiation under Sections 271D/271E must be noted in assessment order; temporary family loans without ...
Income Tax : When an assessee voluntarily discloses income and the assessment is based on this disclosure without any changes, imposing a penal...
Income Tax : Penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on estimated additions without concrete evidence of concealment or inacc...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai deletes Section 271B penalty for audit delay due to partner's health issues in Balaji Logistics case. Learn about the...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that no transfer pricing adjustment could have been made in the hands of assessee on account of ALP of specified ...
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...
Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s order canceling penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Co-owner status and lack of concealment discussed.
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)
