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 : Explore recent ITAT judgment in Rakesh Kr. Jha vs. ITO, delving into interpretation of Sections 271A and 271B, highlighting confli...
Income Tax : Learn about the penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act of 1961 for various defaults and offenses. Find out the fines ...
Income Tax : Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against...
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 : ITAT Mumbai cancels ₹1 lakh penalty imposed on Sameer Mavji Patel under Section 271B for delayed tax audit report, citing reason...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai confirmed penalty imposed under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for non-furnishing audit report, in absence of any...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the order from ITAT Agra where penalty u/s 271B was deleted for Tasavver Husain vs ITO. Detailed analysis an...
Income Tax : Detailed analysis of the appeal against a penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act by the ITAT Delhi in the case o...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT sets aside penalty under section 271B, citing previous penalty under section 271A for non-maintenance of accounts in H...
In reply to the show-cause notice for initiation of penalty, the assessee has replied that he is a Sr. Citizen; his accounts are looked after by Accountant. The accountant of the assessee is not qualified person. The assessee was under bona fide belief that accounts are not required to be issued under section 44AB of the Act.
The issue is with respect to levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is engaged in the business of Advertising Agency and during the year under consideration the commission earned from the Advertising Agency was not in excess of the limits prescribed under section 44AB for the purpose of getting the books audited.
In a recent ruling, the Hyderabad ITAT ruled that non- enclosure of audit report to the return of income would not attract penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Hyderabad held in the case of Sai Prasanthi Realtors & Sai Eswar Real Estates & Developers v. Dy. CIT that if assessee has obtained audit report before due date, but did not enclose audit report along with return of income due to CBDT instructions in this regard then, imposition of penalty under section 271B […]
Articles gives Suggestions For Budget 2017-18 – Rationalization Of Penalty Provisions U/s. 271B For Non / Delayed Filing Of Tax Audit Report
It is held that requirement of getting books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained. In the absence of the maintenance of books of account, there can be no penalty u/s 271B of the Act.
It is clear that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the provisions of Section 44AB were not applicable to a Club, while supplying beverages, liquor etc., to its members as it was not engaged in any business
Suggestion For Union Budget 2016-17 For Amendment In Section 119(2)(A) To Give CBDT Specific Powers For Granting General Immunity From Penalty U/S.271B (As An Effective Alternative Remedy For Extension Of Due Date For Obtaining And Furnishing Of Tax Audit Reports)
Chopra Properties Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) AO was of the view that according to provisions of Section 44AB assessee is required to get his accounts audited before specified date and not on the specified date. Therefore, as assessee has obtained this tax audit report on 30th September 2008 and not before 30th September, 2008, therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 271B of the IT Act.
Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the order imposing penalty does not disclose that prior approval of the Joint Commissioner was obtained in either of the two cases. He drew our attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of AWT No. 4 of 2003 and AWT No. 5 of 2003
