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 ...
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/-
In the present case also, assessee has engaged a chartered accountant to guide her in complying to statutory requirements. Therefore, when the C.A. issued a certificate opining that there is no requirement for deduction of tax at source, assessee under a bonafide belief that withholding of tax is not required did not deduct tax at source on the remittances made.
