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 : This article outlines major penalties under the Income-tax Act for defaults involving tax payments, return filing, TDS compliance,...
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 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...
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...
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.
Telangana High Court dismisses a bookie’s appeal, affirming a Rs. 1 lakh penalty for failing to audit accounts despite a high turnover, rejecting contradictory claims.
ITAT Surat affirms penalty on Pristine Jewellery for non-compliance with tax audit requirements, rejecting claims of reasonable cause and distinguishing previous judgments.
ITAT Lucknow held that commission earned by Cane Development Councils or Cooperative Cane Development Unions from sugar mills on supply of sugar cane is business income and hence eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Cochin remands 44AB penalty case, stating sufficient cause for delay should be considered over its length for condoning appeal filing delays.
