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 : This guide explains who is required to maintain books of account under Section 44AA based on business, profession, turnover, and i...
Income Tax : This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the appli...
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 : Explore amendments to section 253 of Income-tax Act, adjusting time limits for filing appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal...
Income Tax : ITAT ruled that personal savings account credits require proof of business nexus before being treated as turnover. The income addi...
Income Tax : Orissa High Court held that post search operation all pending assessments/reassessments doesn’t not automatically get abated as ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Bangalore held that cash received as part of sale consideration for immovable property does not automatically attract pen...
Income Tax : The dispute centered on a statutory obligation to maintain books of account. The tribunal confirmed that non-compliance attracts p...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that once penalty is imposed for non-maintenance of books, a second penalty for non-audit cannot be levied. Levy...
The dispute centered on a statutory obligation to maintain books of account. The tribunal confirmed that non-compliance attracts penalty under Section 271A, which cannot be deleted without substantive rebuttal.
The tribunal held that once penalty is imposed for non-maintenance of books, a second penalty for non-audit cannot be levied. Levy of section 271B was held to be impermissible double penalisation.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 271A cannot be levied merely because books were rejected and income was estimated. Since audited books were available, there was no failure to maintain accounts.
The Tribunal deleted a penalty imposed for alleged non-maintenance of accounts. It held that audited books, even if defective, do not attract penalty under Section 271A.
The Tribunal held that only the first non-compliance under Section 142(1) could attract penalty, deleting the remaining ₹50,000 imposed for repeated defaults. It also restored penalties under Sections 271A and 271(1)(c) for fresh adjudication since they depend on the pending quantum appeal.
ITAT Delhi held that a Local Authority providing general public utility services is not required to maintain books under Section 44AA. The penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books was deleted.
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal because the penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books had already been deleted by the Tribunal, establishing that the authority was not legally obliged to keep books. The Tribunal concluded that if no books are required to be maintained under Section 44AA, no penalty for failure to audit them under Section 271B can legally survive.
ribunal held that penalty under section 271B cannot be levied without books of account. Only penalty u/s 271A for non-maintenance applies, reduced from ₹1.5 lakh to ₹25,000.
ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment notices issued in July 2022 for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were barred by limitation, citing a Supreme Court precedent.
The ITAT Delhi has deleted a ₹25,000 penalty under Section 271A, ruling that F&O turnover for a trader should be calculated based on ICAI’s guidance, not the Assessing Officer’s method.
