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 : Understand the penalties, interest, and disallowance of expenditure under Section 201 for failure to comply with TDS provisions in...
Income Tax : Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifica...
Income Tax : Income Tax Act amendments propose penalties by Assessing Officers instead of Joint Commissioners. Omission of section 271BB and ch...
Income Tax : Post-Finance Bill 2025, penalties under specified sections of the Income-tax Act will be levied by the Assessing Officer, with Joi...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that territorial jurisdiction depends on the location of the Assessing Officer handling the assessment. Since the ...
Income Tax : ITAT Raipur held that penalty proceedings initiated after unreasonable delay violated the statutory limitation prescribed under Se...
Income Tax : Orissa High Court held that assessment order set aside as proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act initiated without se...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh upheld penalty under Section 271C as exemption under Section 10(5) applies only to travel within India, requiring ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer examined records and adopted a plausible ...
ITAT Delhi held that territorial jurisdiction depends on the location of the Assessing Officer handling the assessment. Since the assessee’s jurisdiction lay in Agra, the Delhi Bench dismissed the appeal.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty proceedings initiated after unreasonable delay violated the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 275(1)(c). The Tribunal ruled that delayed penalty orders cannot survive once limitation expires.
Orissa High Court held that assessment order set aside as proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act initiated without serving of statutory notice. Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO to serve notice u/s. 148 as not hit by limitation u/s. 149.
ITAT Chandigarh upheld penalty under Section 271C as exemption under Section 10(5) applies only to travel within India, requiring TDS on foreign travel reimbursements.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer examined records and adopted a plausible view. Mere disagreement or desire for further enquiry is insufficient.
ITAT ruled that exemption under Section 10(5) does not extend to foreign travel, following the binding Supreme Court decision. Consequently, non-deduction of TDS attracted penalty under Section 271C.
The Tribunal held that mere transfer of funds to a state undertaking does not shift statutory TDS liability. Without proof of lawful discharge of TDS, penalty was sustained
The Tribunal examined whether non-deduction of TDS on External Development Charges justified treating the payer as an assessee-in-default. It held that the Assessing Officer must first verify whether the payee has already paid tax, as mandated by the proviso to section 201(1).
In a landmark ruling, the SC clarified that an assessee in default cannot be made to pay tax already discharged by the recipient, reaffirming Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B).
ITAT Delhi upheld that non-deduction of TDS on External Development Charges (EDC) paid to HUDA constitutes default under sections 201(1)/201(1A). Following High Court precedent in Puri Construction, the ruling clarifies that such payments attract TDS under section 194C even without a formal contract.
