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...
Penalty was levied under section 271 B of the Act on the ground that tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act was not filed by the assessee before filing of return of income and no explanation was given.
Assessee was not keeping good health for which she was not in a position to obtain Audit Report in time, and, therefore, could not file before statutory due date
As the turnover of the assessee was less than the prescribed limit fixed for tax audit, provisions of Section 44AB of the Act are not applicable to the assessee. When the provisions of Section 44 AB of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case, levy of penalty under Section 271B of the Act does not arise.
ITAT Jaipur held that once the penalty is levied for non-maintenance of book of accounts, there cannot be further default for not getting the same audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act.
Maranaikana Halli Jayashella Shetty Pradeepkumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) 271B Penalty- When the Assessee Has Not Maintained the Books of Account, There Is No Question of Getting the Books of Account Audited U/S 44AB Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) making additions to the returned income u/s 44AD. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271A & 271B. […]
Section 273B of the Act, squarely applies and since assessee has a reasonable cause for not getting books of account audited, he should not be visited by penalty u/s 271B
ITAT Jaipur held that once the penalty is levied for non-maintenance of book of accounts, there cannot be further default for not getting the same audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act and therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271B is not justified.
Allahabad High Court held that when public servant himself makes a demand and demand is accepted by bribe giver and bribe is paid by the bribe giver, it is a case of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
ITAT Jaipur held that where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non-maintenance of books of account u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act. However, in such circumstances imposing penalty u/s. 271B for not getting books of accounts audited is not justifiable.
Sh. Yasir Bilal Khan Vs DCIT (ITAT Amritsar) ITAT Amritsar held that penalty u/s 271B for non-furnishing of audit report within specified date leviable as assessee failed to prove nexus between non-completion of the audit report u/s. 44AB with the flood of Kashmir. Facts- The penalty was levied by the ld. AO u/s. 271B of […]
