Income Tax : This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences ...
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 : All Odisha Tax Advocates Association has filed an PIl before Orissa High Court with following Prayers- (i) Admit the Writ Petition...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that the assessees bona fide belief, based on the Departments consistent acceptance of interest income as Income...
Income Tax : ITAT ruled that personal savings account credits require proof of business nexus before being treated as turnover. The income addi...
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...
Sri. Abdul Azeez M Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) Admittedly in this case, no audit report has been filed for assessment year 2009-2010. It is the contention of the assessee that there was a reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act. It was submitted by the learned AR that consequent to search and seizure […]
Penalty under Section 271B was justified as assessee had not produced audit report in the prescribed format before AO and no explanation regarding the reasonable cause for not filing the audit report within the prescribed time limit was given.
M/s. PMC Rubber Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) We note that the assessee has filed form no. 3CD and 3CB and the same has not been disputed therefore the tax audit report was on record and hence the penalty should not be levied. However the Assessing Officer disputed that instead of form […]
Assessee assailed the imposition of penalty under section 271B imposed by AO on account of failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB. Assessee contended that penalty was not justified as no books of account were maintained by assessee.
Where assessee, in order to get a bank loan, submitted a bogus audit report from CA and showed fake turnover in his return of income, imposition of penalty under section 271B for non-compliance of section 44AB was justified.
Where there is a delay in completion of statutory audit, there exist a reasonable cause for the delay in completion of tax audit and issuance of tax audit report.
M/s. Johns Biwheelers Vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin) In this case, the assessee was required to get his books of account audited and filed along with the return of income u/s. 44AB within the due date of 30/09/2013 for the assessment year 2013-14. However, the audit report was furnished only on 28/03/2014. The contention of the […]
The assessee had not filed the audit report in this case. The assessee was very casual and did not enter appearance for the show cause notice issued for imposition of penalty. The assessee has not made out a reasonable cause as mentioned u/s 273B of the I.T.Act for non-furnishing of audit report u/s 44AB of the I.T.Act. Hence, we are of the view that the penalty u/s 271B of the I.T.Act has been rightly imposed. It is ordered accordingly.
Md. Salim Qurasi Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) We have heard rival submissions. From the papers available on the record including the paper book of the assessee, we find that the assessee had got his accounts tax audited for the Assessment Year 2013-14, on 27/09/2013.We find that the same has been filed before the ld. Assessing […]
Sagar Dutta Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Penalty under section 271B justified on Assessee who was Partner in M/s. Price Waterhouse which is a partnership firm for his Failure to get his accounts audited as his remuneration was exceeding the limit specified U/s. 44AB. We find that in the instant case penalty of Rs.37,080/- was imposed […]
