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...
Vakrangee Foundation faces a penalty for non-compliance with tax audit provisions under Section 44AB. ITAT rules that Section 2(15) does not exempt charitable institutions.
Explore case of Manjeet Kaur vs ITO, where a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was contested due to a reasonable cause amid Covid-19. Full ITAT Jaipur order analysis.
In a case of Vikram Dhirani vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi rules in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty under section 271AAA due to the lack of opportunity to explain undisclosed income source during search proceedings.
In a significant decision, ITAT Ahmedabad rules that a bonafide mistake in computing income tax does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Full analysis here.
Read the full text of the ITAT Ahmedabad order regarding the penalty under Section 271 in the case of Harson Labs Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT for Assessment Year 2015-16.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that penalties under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed on loans transacted through banking channels. Details and analysis.
ITAT Delhi affirms penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act against Amandeep Singh Sran for concealing income. Analysis of the case and its implications.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable as the assessee is eligible to avail the benefit of presumptive taxation up to Rs. 2 Crores as per section 44D of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as non-declaration of interest on income tax refund was bona fide and cannot be said to be underreporting of income.
Learn why ITAT Chennai deleted the penalty in the case of S. A. Poultry Farms vs. ITO for failure to upload the income tax return electronically. Detailed analysis provided.
