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 : 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 : All Odisha Tax Advocates Association has filed an PIl before Orissa High Court with following Prayers- (i) Admit the Writ Petition...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai cancels ₹1 lakh penalty imposed on Sameer Mavji Patel under Section 271B for delayed tax audit report, citing reason...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai confirmed penalty imposed under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for non-furnishing audit report, in absence of any...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the order from ITAT Agra where penalty u/s 271B was deleted for Tasavver Husain vs ITO. Detailed analysis an...
Income Tax : Detailed analysis of the appeal against a penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act by the ITAT Delhi in the case o...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT sets aside penalty under section 271B, citing previous penalty under section 271A for non-maintenance of accounts in H...
Levy of penalty by the assessing officer after passage 30 months after the completion of the assessment, we are of the opinion that the penalty proceedings are barred by limitation and consequently penalties levied under section 271B cannot be sustained
AR contends that there were no sales or purchase made by the assessee during the year under consideration and the additions made on account of unexplained cash deposits, unexplained investments, unexplained other investments and unexplained profit on sale of land to an extent of Rs.15,40,26,567/- is not turnover as the investments and sale of land was in the nature of capital gain but not in the category of business income.
Senapati Satija Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In Section 271B of the Act, the discretion has been given to the Assessing Officer to direct the assessee to pay by way of penalty a sum equal to one-half percent of the total sales etc. etc. The provisions empower the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty as per […]
T P D 101 Uthangarai Milk- Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The assessee supposed to have been filed audit report as required u/s.44AB of the Act, on or before 31.10.2015. However, such audit report has been filed on 05.03.2016, which is before the date of completion of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the […]
Gurukrupa Developers Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) The learned AR before us inter-alia submitted that the books and other supporting documents of the assessee were impounded by the search team. Therefore, the assessee could not maintain proper books of accounts due to the reason beyond its control. When proper books of account were not available, the […]
The new auditor, as per the established procedure, sought a no objection from the earlier auditor, who raised certain objections. Those issues were resolved later on, which led to the delay in the audit of the accounts of the assessee.
Yuvraj Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT find that reasonable cause exists for failure of the assessee to get his account audited in respect of previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2011-12 in question. The assessee has claimed turnover in business to the tune of Rs.58,42,500/-which is below the threshold of Rs.60 lac applicable at […]
Kendrapara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) A perusal of the facts as recorded by the AO shows that the delay in submitting the audit report was on account of delay in obtaining audit report from the statutory auditors. It is fairly admitted that the statutory auditors is appointed by the Registrar of […]
Section 273B of the Act provides that the penalty u/s 271B need not be imposed if there is a reasonable cause for the said failure.
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur) It is not disputed by both the parties that there is no finding in the assessment order for levy of penalty for the alleged default u/s. 271B of the Act and it is also not disputed that after passing of the order on 31.12.2011, the alleged […]
