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...
ITAT Kolkata deletes the penalty imposed on Devnadi Advisory Pvt. Ltd. due to alleged non-compliance of notice under section 271B of the Income Tax Act
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty u/s 271B not leviable for mere delay of one day as such delay didn’t have any deliberate intention. The delay if any is on account the reasons on the technical letches on the portal and the same is venial in nature.
ITAT Cochin held that delayed audit report, due to illness of a partner and hardware damage, constituted a technical venial breach that did not result in any loss to exchequer.
Admittedly, the assessee had got the books of account audited for the first time for the relevant assessment year. Prior to the relevant assessment year, the assessee was under the bonafide belief that only the gross commission receipts are to be taken as turnover for the purpose of audit.
Explore the ITAT Ranchi ruling on penalty imposition for non-audit of books, analyzing the distinction between maintenance and audit requirements under Sections 44AA and 44AB of the Income Tax Act.
Shri Palabathuni Chandra Ravi Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income electronically on 21.1.2018 declaring total income at Rs.6,21,210/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee deposited a total of […]
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.
