Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : Comprehensive summary of income tax penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27. Covers defaults in tax payment, filing, rep...
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 : Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates,...
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 : The Bangalore ITAT held that an assessee claiming exemption based on Form 16 issued by the employer acted under a bona fide belief...
Income Tax : The Mumbai ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot impose the maximum 90% penalty under Section 271AAB without recording extra...
Income Tax : The court held that transfer pricing adjustments cannot automatically be treated as misreporting of income. Without evidence of de...
Income Tax : Holding that the search team did not examine the source of cash properly, the Tribunal directed bifurcation of penalty—30% on de...
Income Tax : PCIT Vs Sandeep Chandak (Allahabad High Court) These income tax appeals arose from a common order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the I...
Tribunal holds that surrendered LTCG cannot be treated as undisclosed income when fully recorded in books and supported by verifiable documents. Penalty under section 271AAB was therefore not leviable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB could not be levied because no incriminating documents were found during the search. It ruled that mere surrender of income does not constitute undisclosed income under the statutory definition.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied without specifying whether the case involved under-reporting or misreporting of income. The AO issued a 200% penalty without identifying the statutory limb or giving reasons. Since the order lacked satisfaction and reasoning, the penalty was quashed.
ITAT Bangalore confirmed that income admitted under Section 132(4) constitutes undisclosed income under Section 271AAB. The assessee’s claim of voluntary disclosure to avoid litigation was rejected, validating the ₹30 lakh penalty.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted a ₹22.21 lakh penalty under Section 271AAB, ruling that the show-cause notice was defective for not specifying the charge. The Tribunal also held that mere stock valuation differences and an already offered cash investment do not qualify as “undisclosed income” under the section’s strict definition.
A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misreporting income and non-compliance with compliance. Learn about financial penalties and potential rigorous imprisonment for serious tax offenses.
Comprehensive summary of income tax penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27. Covers defaults in tax payment, filing, reporting, and compliance as amended by the Finance Act, 2025, with detailed penalty provisions.
The ITAT deleted penalties under both Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A, ruling that merely making a bona fide but ultimately unsustainable tax claim under the India-UK DTAA does not attract a penalty. The Tribunal held that a difference in legal interpretation, especially in complex international tax issues, does not constitute concealment or misreporting of income.
The ITAT Mumbai, in Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani Vs ITO, deleted penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for notional income from house property, holding that penalty requires actual concealment, not notional additions.
The ITAT Chandigarh ruled that a show cause notice was defective and invalid, leading to the deletion of a penalty imposed on G.S. Auto Comp Pvt. Ltd.
