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...
Income Tax : The law now proposes a single consolidated assessment-cum-penalty order for under-reporting of income, reducing multiple proceedin...
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 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...
Income Tax : The Jodhpur ITAT held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive where the Assessing Officer completed scrutiny asses...
Income Tax : The issue involved penalty on disallowance of lease premium deduction. The Tribunal held that admission of the issue by the High C...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held that mere differences in property valuation do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Penalty und...
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...
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.
In a crucial judgment on the scope of penalty provisions in tax and other civil liability laws, the Supreme Court has significantly broadened their scope (Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, CA Nos. 10289 – 10303 of 2003, decided on September 29, 2008, per Pasayat J.). The judgment of the three-judge Bench on a reference from a Division Bench overrules the important decision in Dilip Shroff v. JCIT. The following is an argument that it has done so unsatisfactorily.
Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors – The Explanations appended to Section 272(1)(c) of the IT Act entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return.
CIT vs. Gold Coin Health – The recommendations of the Wanchoo Committee and the CBDT Circular make it clear that the amendment to Expl. 4 to s. 271(1)(c) was to make explicit what was otherwise implicit i.e. that penalty can be imposed even in a case where the assessment results in a loss.
CIT vs. Dodsal Ltd (Bombay High Court) – It is not possible to accept the submission of the Revenue that once the AO comes to the conclusion that there is a breach of the mandate of Section 158BFA(1), then the penalty has to be mandatory imposed. The terminology of section 158BFA makes it clear that the AO has a discretion in the matter of levy of penalty.
