Income Tax : This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences ...
Income Tax : A consolidated guide to Income-tax Act threshold limits for AY 2026-27 covering exemptions, deductions, TDS, TCS, compliance and p...
Income Tax : This guide explains who is required to maintain books of account under Section 44AA based on business, profession, turnover, and i...
Income Tax : This FAQ serves as a reference for the Income-tax Act provisions relating to cash receipts, loans, repayments, and electronic paym...
Income Tax : This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the appli...
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 : ITAT Chennai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the AO accepts the income declared in the return filed ...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase addition is sustained only on an estima...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that a penalty notice under Section 271AAB must clearly specify the applicable statutory limb and charge. As t...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that the assessees bona fide belief, based on the Departments consistent acceptance of interest income as Income...
Income Tax : ITAT ruled that personal savings account credits require proof of business nexus before being treated as turnover. The income addi...
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...
Assessing Officer was carried away by the original return filed by the assessee, wherein originally the income admitted in the course of search was not returned by it. But the fact is that the assessee had filed a revised return before completing the assessment.
The provisions of Penalty levied u/s 272B of Income Tax Act, 1961 are prospective i.e. it is applicable from the date of insertion of sub-clause (iv) to section 139A(5B) of the Act i.e. 01.06.2006.
In the present case, the first show cause notice for initiation of proceedings was issued by the AO on 25.03.2003 and was served on the assessee on 27.03.2003. Obviously, the later period also expired on 30.09.2003 when six months expired from the end of the month in which the action for imposing the penalty was initiated. The order as passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for the penalty under Section 271D on 28.05.2004 was clearly hit by the bar of limitation and has rightly been set aside in the orders impugned.
Having been served with a legal notice for the levy of penalty u/s. 271B, it was incumbent on the assessee to cause to comply with the provision, at least for the second year and, in any case, seek legal opinion in its respect. Rather, it could have, on its own, requested the AO not levy the penalty for that year (i.e., A.Y. 2006-07), explaining that the non-audit of its accounts u/s. 44AB stood caused only due to its ignorance of law,
According to section 271A, if the assessee fails to keep and maintain any such books of account and other documents as required by section 44AA and the Rules in any previous year, penalty is leviable. Section 44AA(2)(i) and (ii) provides that every person carrying on business shall keep and maintain such books of account and other documents as may enable the AO to compute his total income in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Assessee entered into a collaboration agreement with ‘D’ for purchase of land on its behalf and development thereof by ‘D’. ‘D’ purchased land from farmers on behalf of the assessee through its agent ‘J’. In lieu of the consideration paid by ‘D’ for purchase of land, its account was credited by way of journal entries. ‘J’ had made payments in cash to the farmers in order to effect purchases.
In the instant case, the ITO(TDS) while going through the quarterly return in Form No.26Q, filed by the assessee noted that it has omitted to quote PAN/had quoted invalid PAN in 196 cases. As regards the reasonable cause,it was pleaded on behalf of the assessee that TDS was deducted and deposited in time in government Treasury. The default is only with regard to the wrong quoting of PAN of 196 of the deductees, such deductees quoted wrong PAN.
The Tribunal while examining this issue went purely by the facts of the case and held that the difficulties in non-production of the documents as was required under the statute was on account of shifting of branch of the bank shortly before the date of the survey and afterwards within a period of two weeks they were furnished before the Assessing Officer. Since, these documents at the time of survey were not presented, it was inferred that they were collected subsequently in post survey period.
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,-
