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 article outlines major penalties under the Income-tax Act for defaults involving tax payments, return filing, TDS compliance,...
Income Tax : A comprehensive guide to penalty provisions under the Income-tax Act covering defaults in returns, tax payments, TDS, audits, tran...
Income Tax : Section 271AAB penalties will not apply to searches initiated under Section 132 after September 1, 2024, as per the Finance Bill, ...
Income Tax : Penalty under Section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act is not applicable for searches after 1st September 2024, replaced by Section 15...
Income Tax : Section 271AAB provides for imposition of penalty at specified rates where search has been initiated. The rate of penalty varies...
Income Tax : Section 271AAB provides for imposition of penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income found during the course of search and admitted at t...
Income Tax : Present scheme of administration of Search and Assessment of search cases needs to be made effective to reduce technical complexit...
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 : The Tribunal ruled that a penalty notice lacking a specific allegation of under-reporting, misreporting, or the applicable clause ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271AAB cannot survive where the show cause notice fails to specify the exact statutory ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to record a clear and consci...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that penalty under Section 270A could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to clearly distinguish b...
The Mumbai ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot impose the maximum 90% penalty under Section 271AAB without recording extraordinary reasons. In absence of special circumstances, the penalty was restricted to the minimum prescribed rate of 30%.
The court held that transfer pricing adjustments cannot automatically be treated as misreporting of income. Without evidence of deliberate concealment, penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed.
Holding that the search team did not examine the source of cash properly, the Tribunal directed bifurcation of penalty—30% on declared income and 60% on unexplained income.
PCIT Vs Sandeep Chandak (Allahabad High Court) These income tax appeals arose from a common order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Lucknow, for the Assessment Year 2014–15, by which penalties imposed under Section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were set aside. The appeals before the Allahabad High Court were […]
The High Court ruled that penalty proceedings arising from search and initiated in assessment are governed by appeal-linked limitation rules. A penalty passed within six months from receipt of the tribunal order was held valid.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB cannot survive when the notice fails to specify the exact charge or applicable clause. A vague and routine penalty notice violates mandatory legal requirements, rendering the penalty invalid.
The decision clarifies that voluntary admission and taxation of income post-search does not ipso facto warrant penalty. Absence of contumacious conduct weighed against the Revenue.
The ruling highlights that immunity under DTDRS is general to penalty proceedings. Consequently, revising penalties merely because a different section might apply is impermissible.
Only income supported by cash actually found during search could attract penal consequences. The balance amount, unsupported by incriminating material, was held outside the scope of Section 271AAB.
The Tribunal ruled that section 271AAB applies only to undisclosed income found in search, not to routine disallowances from recorded books.
