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...
Jai Gopal Sondhi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We note that although the Assessing Officer has levied penalty in all the four cases for non-compliance of statutory notices, all the same he has proceeded to frame the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. We also note that the CIT(A), while dismissing the assessees’ appeals has […]
Arjuna, while playing on the Football Ground if, a player pushes other players or creates any obstruction then the referee whistles and show a Yellow Card. Yellow Card represents a mild penalty. If you look at Income Tax, the taxpayers are intimated by a prior notice and thereafter a penalty is levied
The issue under consideration is whether the penalty u/s 271C levied due to failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) on LTA paid to employee is justified in law?
DCIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of expenses made u/s.35D? ITAT states that, the assessee claimed deduction of preliminary expenses u/s 35D which was rejected by Ld.AO in terms of decision of Hon’ble Madras […]
Balaji Telefilms Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without specifying the limb will be sustain under law? ITAT states that, it has been held by Hon’ble Court that the notice would have to specifically state the ground mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act namely […]
Gangotri Textiles Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Madras High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the assessing officer is justified in law? In the present case, the assessee did not disclose about the sale of the lands and windmill in the return of income, which was clear from the perusal […]
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.
