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 existing provisions of section 276C, 276CC, 277, 277A and section 278 of the Income-tax Act provide that in a case where the amount of tax, penalty or interest which would have been evaded by a person exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine.
It is proposed to provide that the provisions of section 271AAA will not be applicable for searches conducted on or after 1st July, 2012. It is also proposed to insert a new provision in the Act (section 271AAB) for levy of penalty in a case where search has been initiated on or after 1st July, 2012. The new section provides that,-
It is noticed that the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under section 271FA on February 23, 2010, requiring him to attend his office on March 11, 2010, and show cause as to why the penalty under section 271FA should not have been imposed upon him for failure to file the annual information returns within the prescribed time.
Penalty proceedings- Mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of income of assessee, but if claim besides being incorrect in law is malafide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) comes into play and work to disadvantage of assessee.
Delhi High Court rules on penalty under Sec 271(1)(c) in CIT Vs Nalwa Sons. Case involves tax assessment, book profits, and disallowed deductions. Read more.
The Tribunal ruling has reiterated the principle of ‘bona fide difference of opinion’ arising in the context of application of most appropriate transfer pricing method. The Tribunal has ruled that any addition to income arising as a result of bona fide difference of opinion cannot be used as a basis for levy of penalty.
THE Central Vigilance Commission disposed of 1266 cases during April 2010 referred to it for advice. The Commission advised imposition of major penalty against 99 officers including 15 from Central Board of Excise & Customs, 13 from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, 11 from Coal India Ltd., 8 from M/o Railways, 7 each from UCO Bank and Bank of Baroda, 5 from MCD, 4 each from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Department of Telecommunications, 3 each from Canara Bank and DDA.
In the case of M/s Galaxy Indo Fab. Limited Vs. Union of India and others since the appeal could not be decided within a period of 180 days, the M/s Galaxy Indo Fab. Limited (petitioner) moved a miscellaneous application for extension of the stay order. The Tribunal vide order dated 14.8.2008 extended the stay order, already granted, till the disposal of the appeal.
WHEN section 11A(2B) of the CEA, 1944 made its appearance in the statute by the Finance Act, 2001 it came as a whiff of fresh air for assessees who had not paid, short paid, short levied/paid any duty of excise. The provision allowed a manufacturer to pay such un-paid Central Excise duty along with interest under section 11AB of the CEA, 1944 and inform the Central Excise officer who after being satisfied of this ascertainment lets go of the formality of issuance of the show cause notice in respect of the duty so paid .
THE CVC had disposed off 468 cases during December 2009 referred to it for advice. The Commission advised initiations of major penalty proceedings against 70 officers. Of these, 20 were from public sector banks, 17 from M/o Railways, 11 from Northern Coalfields Ltd., 4 from Western Coalfields Ltd., 3 from MCD, 2 each from Ministry of Home Affairs and Central Board of Excise and Customs. The remaining 9 cases pertained to different departments of the Government of India and PSUs.
