Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
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 : The ITAT held that mere disclosure of undisclosed income during search is insufficient for immunity under Section 271AAA unless th...
Income Tax : Court held that penalty under Section 270A cannot apply where assessed income does not exceed processed income. Key takeaway: stat...
Income Tax : Penalty imposed under Section 271AAA was set aside, holding that only the Assessing Officer is empowered to levy such penalty. The...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A applies only when the assessee is found to be the owner of money or assets. Mere suspicion or ...
Income Tax : The issue was whether penalty could be levied despite disclosure of undisclosed income during search. The Tribunal held that when ...
Delhi High Court held that imposition of penalty under section 271DA of the Income Tax Act is justifiable since there is no inordinately and inexplicably delay in initiation of penalty proceedings. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Supreme Court held that no penalty under section 271AAA(1) of the Income Tax Act when undisclosed income during course of search is admitted and paid tax with interest. Accordingly, penalty u/s. 271AAA(1) set aside.
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).
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.
