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...
In Gopinath Kanduri vs. ITO case, penalty under section 271D was imposed for a technical violation of section 269SS. Learn how tribunal ruled in favor of assessee.
Analysis of ITAT Chennai decision on V.S.J. Marketing Pvt. Vs DCIT. ITAT upholds penalty for failure to furnish Return of Income as concealment of income.
Explore the case of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. DIT where penalty under Section 271FA for non-filing of AIR was deleted due to reasonable cause.
DCIT Vs Milan Kavinchandra Parikh (ITAT Mumbai) Introduction: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai recently delivered a pivotal judgment in the case between the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) and Milan Kavinchandra Parikh. The judgment raises key questions surrounding the jurisdiction of penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This […]
ITAT Mumbai ruling in DCIT Vs Sai Sugam Enterprises. declares penalty notices under section 274 as invalid if not specifying charge against assessee.
Delhi High Court nullifies penalty notice for Darpan Kohli, as the preceding assessment order was negated by the same court. Explore the full judgment.
ITAT Delhi determines if Bhushan Aviation’s audit report delay due to IBC proceedings warrants a penalty under the Income Tax Act section 271B.
ITAT Hyderabad held that law doesn’t permit delegation of authority by PCIT to Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Accordingly, direction issued by PCIT to AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is unlawful.
ITAT Indore held that the penalty levied u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act without any assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee is not valid and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that Section 271D penalty doesn’t sustain if a loan is accepted through banking channels, relating to A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17.
