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...
Section 270A penalties must specify the exact misreporting clause. Vague notices invalidate penalties and can restore immunity under Section 270AA.
The issue was the summary dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal by the CIT(A) for non-compliance, despite giving only a one-day notice for hearing and a timely adjournment request. The ITAT ruled that dismissing the appeal without granting reasonable time violated the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back, emphasizing the requirement for adequate opportunity of hearing in appellate proceedings.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying quantum addition has been remanded for fresh adjudication. The penalty order was restored to the CIT(A) to be decided only after the quantum appeal is finalized.
The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside a ₹1 lakh penalty under Section 271BA, ruling that failure to electronically file the Form 3CEB transfer pricing report was a mere technical and procedural default. Crucially, the report was prepared before the search and later physically filed with the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that the ₹4.17 Crore TDS penalty order was invalid as it was passed over two years after the expiry of the statutory limitation period (June 30, 2014). This ruling reinforces that the limitation clock starts when the AO initiates the penalty in the assessment order.
The Delhi High Court, in CIT v. Corteva Agriscience Pvt. Ltd., dismissed the Revenues appeals, confirming that penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The ITAT Mumbai, in Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani Vs ITO, deleted penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for notional income from house property, holding that penalty requires actual concealment, not notional additions.
The ITAT Pune ruled that a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify the exact charge—concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Pune ITAT upholds ₹35.92 lakh penalty u/s 270A for misreporting income by a Diagnostic Centre proprietor. Admission of unaccounted cash receipts only after tax survey detection was not considered voluntary disclosure.
Mumbai ITAT deleted Rs.50,000 penalty under s.272A(1)(d), ruling COVID-19 hospitalization was a reasonable cause for non-compliance to multiple notices issued in quick succession.
