Income Tax : This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences ...
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 : The Tribunal ruled that non-deduction of tax pursuant to subsisting High Court directions cannot attract liability under Sections ...
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 ...
ACIT Vs Chaitanya Educational Trust (ITAT Hyderabad) Since the assessee has filed the certificates of the recipients with proof that the recipients have offered the income to tax in their hands, the assessee shall not be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT All are […]
Assessee cannot be considered as having done willful neglect for non-compliance of the TDS provisions. This is just a technical mistake and, accordingly, the assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default and no penalty can be imposed.
Section 273B of the Act provides that in case of a reasonable cause, penalty otherwise exigible, inter alia, u/s 271C of the Act, cannot be imposed.
While allowing the appeal filed by the assessee Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently declared that penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act would not attract when there is a short deduction of tax due to bonafied confusion.
The contract of guarantee does not give any rise to principal – agent relationship between the assessee and the bank and, therefore, the consideration received by the bank on account of guarantee commission cannot be reckoned as commission as contemplated under section 194H and accordingly, there was no requirement to deduct TDS on this payment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata bench recently ordered that the penalty u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied for the delayed deduction of TDS amount.
Since the very basis for levy and upholding of penalty under section 271C of the Act by the authorities below for assessment years 2000- 01 and 2002-03 to 2004- 05 does not survive, the orders levying/upholding the aforesaid penalty are not sustainable.
Tribunal held that sale of SIM Cards/recharge coupons at discounted rate to distributors is not commission and therefore, not liable to TDS provisions u/s. 194H of the Act. Once, the substratum for levy of penalty has eroded there is no question for sustaining the penalty.
In Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs. ACIT, the assessee had not deducted tax at source, AO treated the assessee as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and passed an order demanding tax of Rs. 4,27,910 and interest under section 201(1A) of Rs. 34,233.
Brief facts relating to the case are that a survey 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 15/10/2009 during the course of which it was found that the assessee had deducted tax amounting to Rs.15,76,219/-
