Income Tax : Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifica...
Income Tax : Appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(b) citing ill health, lack of awareness of Faceless Scheme, and procedural lapses. Req...
Income Tax : Section 115BBE imposes a high tax rate on unexplained income to prevent tax evasion. Learn about tax rates, penalties, and complia...
Income Tax : Income Tax Act amendments propose penalties by Assessing Officers instead of Joint Commissioners. Omission of section 271BB and ch...
Income Tax : From April 2025, Section 275 amendments standardize the penalty timeline to six months from the end of the quarter in which procee...
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 Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on estimated GP additions for alleged bogus purchases in Om Sai Traders case f...
Income Tax : ITAT Surat remands penalty case under Section 271B to AO, ruling that bank transactions alone cannot determine turnover. Fresh con...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules that debatable tax claims made in good faith do not warrant penalties under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act....
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that that mens rea is not an essential condition for imposing penalties under civil acts. Penalty u/s. 270A of...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashes penalty on Babu Ram u/s 271(1)(c) as barred by limitation. Penalty order dated April 1, 2022, violated extended...
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 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.
In the present case, the AO had levied penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is not under dispute that the assessee had claimed wrong depreciation on account of additions made in the machinery and factory building accounts, which has been surrendered by the assessee to buy peace of mind. The explanation had been submitted during the assessment proceedings as well as in the penalty proceedings.
We are of the view that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal have approached the issue correctly. The question whether the sale of the stock options would result in long term capital gains or short term gains was not very clear at the time when the respondent/ assessee filed his return for the assessment year 2002-03.
Assessing Officer was carried away by the original return filed by the assessee, wherein originally the income admitted in the course of search was not returned by it. But the fact is that the assessee had filed a revised return before completing the assessment.
The provisions of Penalty levied u/s 272B of Income Tax Act, 1961 are prospective i.e. it is applicable from the date of insertion of sub-clause (iv) to section 139A(5B) of the Act i.e. 01.06.2006.
