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...
The Tribunal examined whether delay in filing the tax audit report warranted penalty under section 271B. It held that liquidation proceedings and the illness and death of the partner constituted reasonable cause under section 273B, justifying deletion of penalty.
The Tribunal held that delayed responses to statutory notices do not attract penalty when full compliance is ultimately made and accepted before assessment completion. The key takeaway is that penalties cannot be imposed mechanically in the absence of willful default.
The issue was whether penalties under sections 271D and 271E apply to cash dealings of a credit society with its members. ITAT held that genuine, audited member transactions supported by reasonable cause are protected under section 273B.
ITAT Delhi ruled that a sub-broker’s turnover includes only brokerage income, not total client transactions, and deleted ₹1.5 lakh penalty under Section 271B.
The ITAT ruled that a Section 148 notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 is invalid because, under the Faceless Reassessment Scheme, only the Faceless Assessing Officer can issue such notices. The entire reassessment was therefore quashed as without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the assessees misunderstanding about the relevance of quantum proceedings justified remanding the 271B penalty order. The AO is directed to consider the assessees factual explanations without unnecessary adjournments.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash reflected in 26AS represents pass-through freight receipts, not actual turnover. Commission income below the audit threshold, hence tax audit under section 44AB was not required and penalty u/s 271B deleted.
Reassessment notice issued beyond statutory time limit under Section 148 was invalid; Tribunal quashed proceedings for A.Y. 2013-14, emphasizing procedural compliance.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B must be deleted because the quantum addition on which it depended was no longer in existence. With the foundational assessment gone, the penalty had no legal justification. The decision underscores the principle that penalty actions fail when their basis disappears.
ITAT dismissed appeals and upheld 271B penalties as the assessee failed to audit accounts despite turnover exceeding Rs. 1 crore. No reasonable cause was shown.
