Income Tax : Discover penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, including default conditions, quantum of penalties, and potent...
Income Tax : Learn about penalty provisions under the IT Act, including penalties for defaults in tax payment, income reporting, and more. Key ...
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 : All Odisha Tax Advocates Association has filed an PIl before Orissa High Court with following Prayers- (i) Admit the Writ Petition...
Income Tax : ITAT Cochin deletes penalty under Section 271B for delayed tax audit, citing the demise of the managing partner as a reasonable ...
Income Tax : Provisions of Section 44AB, which mandate Tax audit, are not applicable to fictional income provisions like Section section 68, 69...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore set aside penalty orders under Section 271B due to improper notice delivery to an unrelated email ID and failure to...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that penalty order under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act has to be passed within reasonable time. Sin...
Income Tax : ITAT Surat remands penalty case under Section 271B to AO, ruling that bank transactions alone cannot determine turnover. Fresh con...
Mumbai ITAT sets aside penalty under section 271B, citing previous penalty under section 271A for non-maintenance of accounts in Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija vs ITO case.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessee failed to get its books of accounts audited based on a reasonable cause. Accordingly, penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for failure to get books of account audited not leviable as assessee reasonable cause shown.
ITAT Mumbai held that exclusion of comparables for the reason that those companies are loss making or low profit making is not correct. Accordingly, TPO directed to include these comparables and re-compute the Arm’s Length Price (ALP).
Kerala High Court instructs prompt consideration of stay application in tax dispute involving non-filing of income return under Section 139 of Income Tax Act.
Explore recent ITAT judgment in Rakesh Kr. Jha vs. ITO, delving into interpretation of Sections 271A and 271B, highlighting conflicting views among High Courts.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act on merely estimating that more income should have been earned from sub-contracting without bringing any comparable figures is unsustainable in law.
Vakrangee Foundation faces a penalty for non-compliance with tax audit provisions under Section 44AB. ITAT rules that Section 2(15) does not exempt charitable institutions.
Madras High Court held that clause (xi) to Explanation to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act relating to the exclusion of the period taken for handing over seized material to the assessing officer is effective prospectively from 01.04.2021. Accordingly, prior assessment years are held to be barred by limitation.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable as the assessee is eligible to avail the benefit of presumptive taxation up to Rs. 2 Crores as per section 44D of the Income Tax Act.
In a landmark decision, ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of Evermore Polymer Systems Ltd., stating that penalties under Section 271B require a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
