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 : The article explains how offences such as wilful tax evasion, failure to file returns, non-payment of TDS/TCS, falsification of re...
Income Tax : This article outlines major offences under the Income-tax Act that may result in prosecution, including tax evasion, non-payment o...
Income Tax : This article explains the statutory powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to waive or reduce penalties in genuine c...
Income Tax : This article outlines major penalties under the Income-tax Act for defaults involving tax payments, return filing, TDS compliance,...
Income Tax : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held legal services are not FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) and directed partner-wise DTAA examination. FTS addition was de...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft ...
Income Tax : ITAT held an assessment passed after the taxpayer's death was invalid in law, quashed the order, and treated all remaining issues ...
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 : Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) inter alia provides that w.e.f. 1 st April, 2017, the Assessing Officer, on an...
This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences of tax defaults ranging from monetary penalties to imprisonment for serious violations.
ITAT Delhi held legal services are not FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) and directed partner-wise DTAA examination. FTS addition was deleted and remanded.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft under Section 144C.
ITAT held an assessment passed after the taxpayer’s death was invalid in law, quashed the order, and treated all remaining issues as academic.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the AO accepts the income declared in the return filed under Section 148.
Bombay High Court held penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase addition is sustained only on an estimated basis.
ITAT Hyderabad held that a penalty notice under Section 271AAB must clearly specify the applicable statutory limb and charge. As the notice was vague and defective, the penalty proceedings were held to be invalid.
ITAT held that filing Form 56G instead of Form 56F was a rectifiable procedural error and directed reconsideration of the Section 10AA claim.
Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of the Section 271D penalty, holding that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment order made the penalty unsustainable.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that royalty payments should continue to be benchmarked under TNMM by following earlier decisions in the assessees own case. It found no reason to replace TNMM with CUP where identical facts had already been decided. The Department’s transfer pricing challenge was therefore dismissed.
