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...
ITAT Hyderabad held that assessment order passed by AO in old PAN cannot be survived if transactions reported by DGFT in old PAN is already reported by assessee in new PAN. Accordingly, matter restored back to re-verify.
ribunal held that penalty under section 271B cannot be levied without books of account. Only penalty u/s 271A for non-maintenance applies, reduced from ₹1.5 lakh to ₹25,000.
The ITAT Raipur restored a penalty appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after find-ing the dismissal was an ex parte order. The Tribunal ruled that a CIT(A) cannot summar-ily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution but must adjudicate on merits.
The ITAT Delhi has partially allowed an appeal by an accommodation entry provider, reducing the assessed commission rate and upholding a penalty for a delayed tax audit report.
ITAT Hyderabad held that rejection of books during assessment proceedings does not retrospectively nullify the obligation to comply with section 44AB of the Income Tax Act within the prescribed time. Accordingly, penalty under section 271B upheld.
ITAT Rajkot held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act for not getting books of accounts audited cannot be sustained since assessee has filed return u/s. 44AD and there is no need to maintain books of accounts u/s. 44AD.
Ankit Chauhan’s penalty for not getting a tax audit was quashed by ITAT Delhi. The court found the assessee to be a commission agent, not a dealer, with reasonable cause for the failure.
Lucknow ITAT confirms penalty under section 271B, ruling that a taxpayer is responsible for timely tax audit completion and report submission, and blaming the CA is not a valid defense.
The ITAT Jaipur quashed a penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited, ruling that if a taxpayer did not maintain books, they cannot be penalized for not auditing them.
Income Tax Bill 2025 proposes changes to Section 271B penalty, aiming for proportionality and reduced litigation in tax audit defaults under Section 44AB.
