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...
The ITAT Kolkata in the above cited case held that if the additional income disclosed by assessee u/s 132(4) voluntarily without being any incriminating material found during the course of search , then department cannot levy penalty u/s 271AAA on such voluntarily disclosed income.
It is a settled position that period of limitation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the limitation period for the imposition of penalty under these provisions would be the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.
It has been brought to notice of CBDT that there are conflicting interpretations of various High Courts on the issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Income tax Act, 1961commences at the level of the Assessing Officer (below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.) or at level of the Range authority i.e. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax./Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Existing provision of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271AAB provides that in a case not covered under the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of the said sub-section of section 271 AAB, a penalty of a sum which shall not be less than thirty per cent but which shall not exceed ninety per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year shall be levied in case where search has been initiated
Existing provision of Sub-section (1) provides for levy of penalty of ten thousand rupees for each failure or default to answer the questions raised by an income-tax authority under the Income-tax Act, refusal to sign any statement legally required during the proceedings under the Income-tax Act or failure to attend to give evidence or produce books or documents
Recommendations For Prescribing Time Limit Of One Year For Disposal Of Petitions For Waiver Of Penalty And Interest Under Sections 273A, 273AA and 220(2A) Whereas, a time limit of 1 year for disposal of a tax payer’s Revision Petition u/s. 264 has been prescribed, there is no such time limit for disposal of Petitions for […]
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.
