Income Tax : This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the appli...
Income Tax : The article explains how offences such as wilful tax evasion, failure to file returns, non-payment of TDS/TCS, falsification of re...
Income Tax : This article outlines major offences under the Income-tax Act that may result in prosecution, including tax evasion, non-payment o...
Income Tax : This article explains the statutory powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to waive or reduce penalties in genuine c...
Income Tax : This article outlines major penalties under the Income-tax Act for defaults involving tax payments, return filing, TDS compliance,...
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 AY 2010-11 was outside the permissible ten-year assessment block computable under Section 153A. Applying th...
Income Tax : The issue was denial of concessional tax regime due to incorrect ITR disclosure and alleged delay in filing Form 10-IC. The Tribun...
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...
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.
