Income Tax : Resident taxpayers holding foreign assets or financial interests may be required to file returns and disclose such assets regardle...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles o...
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...
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 ITAT held that penalty for misreporting of income cannot be levied when the underlying addition is based merely on estimation ...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Sect...
Income Tax : The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscio...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive once the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Se...
Income Tax : The ITAT Visakhapatnam reduced a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) from Rs.30,000 to Rs.10,000 after treating non-compliance with th...
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...
The Tribunal ruled that a mere disallowance of depreciation, with full disclosure of facts, does not attract penalty under Section 270A.
The Court held that Section 270A cannot be invoked when assessed income matches the returned income, and an excessive FTC claim alone does not constitute under-reporting. Key takeaway: Penalty requires statutory pre-conditions to be satisfied, not mere disagreement on a claim.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect carry-forward loss claim arose from an inadvertent mistake and was not deliberate. The penalty was deleted after noting absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Gujarat High Court upheld the deletion of a Section 271D penalty, ruling that the assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating proceedings. No substantial question of law was found, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be imposed when the assessment order lacks recorded satisfaction of a 269ST violation. The ruling confirms that satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory precondition.
The ruling explains strict compliance requirements for specified domestic transactions, including maintaining detailed documentation for eight years. It highlights that failure to maintain, report, or furnish accurate information attracts penalties of up to 2% of transaction value.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be imposed on estimated income. While the penalty on actual taxable additions remains, the portion related to estimated income was deleted. Key takeaway: penalties require confirmed income, not mere estimates.
ITAT restored penalties under Sections 271AAC and 270A after noting CIT(A) dismissed appeal without hearing assessee. Case highlights necessity of providing a fair opportunity before imposing penalties.
ITAT Bangalore confirmed that income admitted under Section 132(4) constitutes undisclosed income under Section 271AAB. The assessee’s claim of voluntary disclosure to avoid litigation was rejected, validating the ₹30 lakh penalty.
Bombay High Court held that once appellate authorities delete a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), no substantial question of law arises. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
