Income Tax : Learn about penalty provisions under the IT Act, including penalties for defaults in tax payment, income reporting, and more. Key ...
Income Tax : Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates,...
Income Tax : Understand the penalties imposable in income tax search cases. Learn about the different types of penalties and their implications...
Income Tax : Assessee filed an appeal concerning the penalty of ₹20,29,394 levied under Section 271AAA for AY 2008-09. It had initially decla...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court ruling on PCIT vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. emphasizes issuing notices under Section 274 before the Income Tax Act's lim...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that the notice under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act should have been issued before the period of limitat...
Income Tax : In a case of Vikram Dhirani vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi rules in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty under section 271AAA due to ...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that law doesn’t permit delegation of authority by PCIT to Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of imposit...
Assessee filed an appeal concerning the penalty of ₹20,29,394 levied under Section 271AAA for AY 2008-09. It had initially declared a total income of ₹23,62,74,550 in its Return of Income (ROI).
Learn about penalty provisions under the IT Act, including penalties for defaults in tax payment, income reporting, and more. Key FAQs and amounts covered.
Delhi High Court ruling on PCIT vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. emphasizes issuing notices under Section 274 before the Income Tax Act’s limitation period. Full judgment analysis.
Delhi High Court held that the notice under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act should have been issued before the period of limitation as prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
In a case of Vikram Dhirani vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi rules in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty under section 271AAA due to the lack of opportunity to explain undisclosed income source during search proceedings.
ITAT Hyderabad held that law doesn’t permit delegation of authority by PCIT to Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Accordingly, direction issued by PCIT to AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is unlawful.
Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates, and relevant judicial precedents.
ITAT Delhi in Padam Singhee Vs DCIT ruled that penalties under section 271AAA of Income Tax Act cannot be levied without a recorded statement
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act leviable as assessee failed to substantiate the source as well as the manner of the undisclosed income.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271AAA not imposable as undisclosed income admitted in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) and specifies the manner in which the income was derived.
