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...
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.
