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...
whether assessee can be held liable u/s 271B of the Act for not getting the books audited during the years when the advances were received from customers under percentage completion method?
The issue under consideration is whether the cancellation of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A) is justified in law?
Where a person required to furnish a return of income under Section 139, fails to do so within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of said section, he shall pay, by way of fee, a sum of- (a) Five thousand rupees, if the return is furnished on or before the 31st day of December of the assessment year; (b) Ten thousand rupees, in any other case;
It is proposed to insert a new section 271J so as to provide that if an accountant or a merchant banker or a registered valuer, furnishes incorrect information in a report or certificate under any provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct him to pay a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such report or certificate by way of penalty.
The Bombay High Court has in its order dated 12th June, 2020 in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd (ITA No.958/2017) has given a fresh perspective to the controversy of validity of penalty notice under section 271(1)(c). In the past the courts have held that if the show cause notice proposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) do not clearly specify whether its for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealment then such show cause notice and consequential proceedings are bad in law.
The issue under consideration is whether the penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) issued to the assessee who has taxed his income as per provision of section 115JB pr 115JC is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the Penalty u/s 271F will be levied for non filing of Income Tax Return even in case of reasonable cause?
Impugned penalty order passed by the AO in the name of erstwhile dissolved company is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B;
New penalty law was inserted vide section 270A under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) which is based on under-reporting and misreporting of income, replacing the erstwhile basis of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
As we all are aware that the TDS return process will consider as incomplete until the Valid TDS certificate has been issued by the deductor. Now if we focus on the word Valid TDS Certificate, it means Form 16/ Form 16A issued by authenticated authority. As on the current date the TRACES have the authorisation […]
