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...
Recently, Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. vs CIT (C.A.No. 9772 of 2013) has pronounced the judgment in respect of section 271(1)(c), which has again raised the vexed issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Assessee has only stated that he had surrendered the additional sum of Rs.40,74,000/- with a view to avoid litigation, buy peace and to channelize the energy and resources towards productive work and to make amicable settlement with the income tax department.
Under section 92E, every person who enters into an international transaction during a previous year is required to obtain a report from a chartered accountant and furnish such report on or before the specified date on the prescribed form. Rule 10E provides that the auditor’s report shall be in Form No.3CEB.
Merely because the assessee complies with the statutory procedural requirement of filing the prescribed form and certificate of the Chartered Accountant, cannot absolve the assessee of its liability if the act or attempt in claiming the deduction was not bonafide.
The penalty under section 272B cannot be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. It can be imposed for failure to perform statutory obligation. The imposition of penalty for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially
The penalty in the instant case stands levied in the sum of Rs.2,41,858/-, i.e., at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, in view of Explanation (4) to section 271(1)(c). The entire enhancement in assessment having been absorbed against brought forward (unabsorbed) business losses
Merely because a claim (per the return of income) is a legal claim, or has a legal aspect to it – which would be in each case – the same by itself cannot be a cause for non levy of penalty in every case, as where there is no valid basis for the same (i.e., the legal claim).
Having heard the submissions of both the sides and on due consideration of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the transaction in respect of the share trading was duly disclosed at the time of filing of the return. Some of the income was shown as long-tern capital gain and part of the income was also shown as speculative business in shares/scripts trading.
Director of assessee company Mr. Varun Sarup Agarwal issued a cheque on 1.2.2007 on behalf of the assessee company for payment of rent and assessee company opened its account after issuance of this cheque. The amount of Rs. 2 lakh was deposited in the bank account of Mr. Varun Sarup Agarwal with a bona fide intention to prevent dishonoring of the cheque issued to the landlord of the assessee company and the remaining amount was returned back to the assessee company’s bank account. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is doubtful whether the amount received by director with an intention to deposit it to the bank account with a bona fide belief that this would save the prestige of the company can be characterized as a loan or a deposit within the meaning of Section 269T of the Act. Although Section 269T of the Act does not expressly confer any exemption from transaction between connected parties or sister concern but a perusal of the decided cases on this point shows that there is a cleavage of judicial opinion.
In yet another case of Shri Ramchandra D Keluskar in ITA No.668/PN/10, the Pune Bench of this Tribunal found that when there are no books of account, the question of its audit does not arise. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the books of account was not maintained and the penalty levied u/s 271A was deleted, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no justification for levying penalty u/s 271B of the Act for not getting the books of account audited.
