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...
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.
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.
