Income Tax : Explore recent ITAT judgment in Rakesh Kr. Jha vs. ITO, delving into interpretation of Sections 271A and 271B, highlighting confli...
Income Tax : Learn about the penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act of 1961 for various defaults and offenses. Find out the fines ...
Income Tax : Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against...
Income Tax : Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecu...
Income Tax : In the tutorial on Penalties Under the Income-tax Act, we discussed various penalties imposable under the Income-tax Act in respec...
Income Tax : All Odisha Tax Advocates Association has filed an PIl before Orissa High Court with following Prayers- (i) Admit the Writ Petition...
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as reasonable cause shown for non-submission of audit report.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable as assessee is a local authority and it cannot be considered to be one engaged in ‘business’ or to be earning profit.
ITAT Pune upholds penalty under Section 271B against Santosh Swarupchand for not filing an audit report, citing contradictions in an accountant’s affidavit.
ITAT Kolkata deletes the penalty imposed on Devnadi Advisory Pvt. Ltd. due to alleged non-compliance of notice under section 271B of the Income Tax Act
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty u/s 271B not leviable for mere delay of one day as such delay didn’t have any deliberate intention. The delay if any is on account the reasons on the technical letches on the portal and the same is venial in nature.
ITAT Cochin held that delayed audit report, due to illness of a partner and hardware damage, constituted a technical venial breach that did not result in any loss to exchequer.
Admittedly, the assessee had got the books of account audited for the first time for the relevant assessment year. Prior to the relevant assessment year, the assessee was under the bonafide belief that only the gross commission receipts are to be taken as turnover for the purpose of audit.
Explore the ITAT Ranchi ruling on penalty imposition for non-audit of books, analyzing the distinction between maintenance and audit requirements under Sections 44AA and 44AB of the Income Tax Act.
Shri Palabathuni Chandra Ravi Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income electronically on 21.1.2018 declaring total income at Rs.6,21,210/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee deposited a total of […]
Penalty was levied under section 271 B of the Act on the ground that tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act was not filed by the assessee before filing of return of income and no explanation was given.