Income Tax : Discover penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, including default conditions, quantum of penalties, and potent...
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 how seizure of documents can impact audit deadlines under Section 44AB and defenses against Section 271B penalties for aud...
Income Tax : Dive into Section 271B's mandates, penalties, and exemptions under the Income Tax Act. Explore real cases, challenges, and strateg...
Income Tax : Explore recent ITAT judgment in Rakesh Kr. Jha vs. ITO, delving into interpretation of Sections 271A and 271B, highlighting confli...
Income Tax : All Odisha Tax Advocates Association has filed an PIl before Orissa High Court with following Prayers- (i) Admit the Writ Petition...
Income Tax : Provisions of Section 44AB, which mandate Tax audit, are not applicable to fictional income provisions like Section section 68, 69...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore set aside penalty orders under Section 271B due to improper notice delivery to an unrelated email ID and failure to...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that penalty order under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act has to be passed within reasonable time. Sin...
Income Tax : ITAT Surat remands penalty case under Section 271B to AO, ruling that bank transactions alone cannot determine turnover. Fresh con...
Income Tax : Aggrieved by the order passed by AO, assessee moved on with an appeal to CIT(A), where assessee challenged the reopening of the as...
Provisions of Section 44AB, which mandate Tax audit, are not applicable to fictional income provisions like Section section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C& 69D
ITAT Bangalore set aside penalty orders under Section 271B due to improper notice delivery to an unrelated email ID and failure to provide adequate response time.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty order under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act has to be passed within reasonable time. Since, the penalty order is not passed within reasonable time, the same is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Surat remands penalty case under Section 271B to AO, ruling that bank transactions alone cannot determine turnover. Fresh consideration ordered.
Aggrieved by the order passed by AO, assessee moved on with an appeal to CIT(A), where assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, arguing that Section 148 was not justified.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for delay in uploading audit report set aside as reasonable cause shown and there was only technical breach without any loss to exchequer of the Government.
ITAT Agra held that confirming penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act before finalization of quantum assessment is unjust and unfair. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Kerala High Court held that issuance of notice for imposition of penalty under section 271B for failure to furnish audit report after more than four years of completion of assessment is barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Pune quashes ₹1,50,000 penalty u/s 271B, citing reasonable cause for delayed tax audit due to impounded records and auditor unavailability.
ITAT Chennai remands penalty case under Section 271B, allowing the assessee another opportunity despite negligence. Case restored for fresh adjudication.
