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...
While sustaining additions on merits, ITAT Delhi restricted taxable income to a lump-sum 8% of Section 68-type amounts. The estimation was granted as a one-time relief and expressly not treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal ruled that Explanation 5A applies only when the assessee is found possessing undisclosed tangible assets, which was not established. Since no such assets were discovered and the additions came from routine assessments, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. This clarifies that the deeming fiction under Explanation 5A is not automatic.
Rajasthan High Court held that criminal prosecution wholly on allegation of concealment is liable to be quashed since the Tribunal has adjudicated that there was neither concealment during penalty proceedings hence there remains no factual or legal basis for the prosecution to survive.
The ITAT Jaipur ruled that penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be imposed when no undisclosed income is found during search operations. Loose documents alone do not justify penalty.
The ITAT found the assessee was not required to maintain books under Section 44AA. The recall led to cancellation of the Section 271AAB penalty for commodities trading income.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice failed to specify the applicable clause under Section 271AAB. It ruled that the omission invalidated the penalty, as the assessee was not informed of the precise charge.
ITAT Jaipur clarified that penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory and requires proper examination of evidence and explanation by the assessee before imposition. Mere surrender of income does not constitute undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that projected profitability notes could not be treated as incriminating material and did not establish undisclosed income. Penalty under section 271AAB was therefore cancelled.
The decision clarified that income supported by books, demat records, and banking documents cannot be penalized as undisclosed under section 271AAB. Penalty reduction by CIT(A) was set aside.
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.
