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...
The assessment u/s 143(3) made disallowing to excess claim of depreciation. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated on disallowance of excess depreciation claimed. The assessee confronted this fact, He is agree to disallow excess depreciation. No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is levied upon the assessee. The Department can not presume that the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars income in the return of income.
On this undisclosed income, A.O. vide penalty order, levied penalty of Rs.2.5 crore u/s 271AAA mainly for the reason of non disclosure of the particulars of income in the statement filed u/s 132(4) by the assessee.
Longstanding and never ending has been the debate regarding what is penalty and whether mens rea is an essential ingredient in levy of penalty or bonafide belief that what was being done was correct would hold good and save the offender from penalty. Over the years the law has evolved and Courts of Law have tried to lay down a law providing clarity in this regard.
Both assessee and revenue are in appeal against the action of deletion of penalty u/s 271AAA. CIT (A) has deleted part of penalty levied but another part of the penalty was retained by him. Assessee is in appeal against the retention order and revenue is against the deletion of penalty.
It is well settled that the parameters of judging the justification for addition made in the assessment case of the assessee is different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income and that certain disallowance/addition could legally be made in the assessment
According to section 269SS of Income Tax Act, while transacting Immovable Property, 100% penalty will be levied if seller has accepted an amount of Rs. 20,000 or more in cash from the buyer. e.g. if for selling an immovable property ‘A’ has received an amount of Rs.1 lakh in cash from ‘B’ then ‘A’ has to pay 100% penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.
2. Penalties – Violation of the provisions of the proposed new legislation will entail stringent penalties. 2.1) Penalty for Non-Disclosure: The penalty for non-disclosure of income or an asset located outside India will be equal to three times the amount of tax payable thereon, i.e., 90 percent of the undisclosed income or the value of the undisclosed asset. This is in addition to tax payable at 30%.
It is clear that the assessee may be under the bonafide belief that TDS is not liable to be deducted on payments made to non-banking financial institution. Section 273B of the Income Tax Act provides that no penalty under section 271C shall be imposable on the person or the assessee as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.
It has become a normal tendency to subject an Assessee to Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in all cases where the Assessee refrains to file an appeal, with a hope to end the nightmare which began with selection of case for scrutiny by accepting the general additions in Assessment order.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) inspite of the fact that the assessee did not furnish any explanation either before the Assessing officer
