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 Tribunal held that audit under section 44AB depends on turnover, not taxability of income. Exempt entities must still comply i...
Income Tax : The issue was whether delay in filing appeal without strong documentary proof should be condoned. The ITAT held that when sufficie...
Income Tax : The issue involved arbitrary estimation of income at 20% and 5% of turnover. The Tribunal reduced it to 4% due to lack of supporti...
Income Tax : Orissa High Court held that post search operation all pending assessments/reassessments doesn’t not automatically get abated as ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Bangalore held that cash received as part of sale consideration for immovable property does not automatically attract pen...
ITAT Bangalore has ruled in Bandenawaz Mulla vs. ACIT that no audit can be conducted under section 44AB of Income Tax Act when assessee has not maintained books of account.
Explore the ruling in the case of Kartick Das Bairagya Vs ITO at ITAT Kolkata, which clarifies the conditions for non-imposition of penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act.
Understand the implications of the Jayaraj Charles Vs ITO case where ITAT Chennai ruled no penalty should be imposed under section 271B of the Income Tax Act when a return isn’t visible on the e-filing portal.
Exploring recent decision of ITAT Mumbai in Rasik Nemchand Pethad Vs DCIT where it was determined that Section 271B penalty doesn’t apply when there’s reasonable cause for failure to comply with provisions.
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.
