Income Tax : Explore recent ITAT judgment in Rakesh Kr. Jha vs. ITO, delving into interpretation of Sections 271A and 271B, highlighting confli...
Income Tax : Penalties for failing to maintain records of specified domestic transactions. Learn about arm's length pricing & essential documen...
Income Tax : Read about Supreme Court's decision in US Technologies case regarding TDS penalty under Section 271C of Income Tax Act, 1961, for ...
Income Tax : Explore the consequences of making incorrect income tax refund claims and the associated legal ramifications. Understand the penal...
Income Tax : Learn about consequences of not verifying your Income Tax Return within 30 days. Avoid penalties, delayed refunds, and loss of ben...
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 : Lucknow CA Tax Practicioners Association has made a Representation to FM for Extension of Time Limit for Assessment cases time bar...
Income Tax : A reasonable leniency may be exercised by the AOs to allow the Taxpayer’s who have paid the tax and interest beyond the time lim...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill, 2017 proposes to levy fees of Rs.5,000 in case where return is furnished after the due date but on or before 31S...
Explore case of Manjeet Kaur vs ITO, where a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was contested due to a reasonable cause amid Covid-19. Full ITAT Jaipur order analysis.
In a case of Vikram Dhirani vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi rules in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty under section 271AAA due to the lack of opportunity to explain undisclosed income source during search proceedings.
In a significant decision, ITAT Ahmedabad rules that a bonafide mistake in computing income tax does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Full analysis here.
Read the full text of the ITAT Ahmedabad order regarding the penalty under Section 271 in the case of Harson Labs Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT for Assessment Year 2015-16.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that penalties under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed on loans transacted through banking channels. Details and analysis.
ITAT Delhi affirms penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act against Amandeep Singh Sran for concealing income. Analysis of the case and its implications.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable as the assessee is eligible to avail the benefit of presumptive taxation up to Rs. 2 Crores as per section 44D of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as non-declaration of interest on income tax refund was bona fide and cannot be said to be underreporting of income.
Learn why ITAT Chennai deleted the penalty in the case of S. A. Poultry Farms vs. ITO for failure to upload the income tax return electronically. Detailed analysis provided.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable in absence of any concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee.