Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
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 : Income Tax Bill 2025 proposes changes to Section 271B penalty, aiming for proportionality and reduced litigation in tax audit defa...
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 : All Odisha Tax Advocates Association has filed an PIl before Orissa High Court with following Prayers- (i) Admit the Writ Petition...
Income Tax : The ITAT ruled that a Section 148 notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 is invalid because, under the Faceless Rea...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the assessees misunderstanding about the relevance of quantum proceedings justified remanding the 271B pena...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that cash reflected in 26AS represents pass-through freight receipts, not actual turnover. Commission income belo...
Income Tax : Reassessment notice issued beyond statutory time limit under Section 148 was invalid; Tribunal quashed proceedings for A.Y. 2013-1...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B must be deleted because the quantum addition on which it depended was no lon...
Explore the recent judgement of ITAT Pune in the case of Rupa Sanjay Nigade Vs ITO, where the Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalty under Section 271B due to non-audit of books of accounts.
ITAT Delhi nullifies Section 271B penalty on Parag Jain, asserting that only difference in non-delivery derivative transactions should be taken into account when determining turnover for a tax audit.
ITAT Surat held that assessee is not required to get his books of accounts audited under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act as capital gain, short term or long term, doesn’t form part of turnover. Accordingly, penalty under section 271B not leviable.
In Deepak T. Dhanwani vs ITO, where ITAT Chennai waived penalty for delayed tax audit report due to accountant’s unavailability,
ITAT Amritsar held that non-filing of tax audit report due to technical glitch is the reasonable cause shown. Accordingly, penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable for such non-filing of tax audit report.
ITAT Kolkata held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable as turnover of the assessee is less than INR 1 Crore. Accordingly, the assessee is outside the purview of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that assessee being a local authority is not engaged in business or earning profit, accordingly, penalty u/s 271B for not getting accounts audited unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as reasonable cause shown for non-submission of audit report.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable as assessee is a local authority and it cannot be considered to be one engaged in ‘business’ or to be earning profit.
ITAT Pune upholds penalty under Section 271B against Santosh Swarupchand for not filing an audit report, citing contradictions in an accountant’s affidavit.
