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 ...
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.
The ITAT Lucknow held that the penalty imposed under Section 271C on NHAI was invalid as it was passed beyond the six-month limitation period and became unsustainable after deletion of the related addition.
The Bombay High Court stayed orders treating PCMC as an assessee in default for not deducting TDS on issuance of TDRs, holding that Section 194LA applies only to monetary compensation.
ITAT Mumbai held that, in terms of section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, co-operative society is not liable to deduction TDS on interest paid or credited on deposits to members before 1st June 2015. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal allowed to that extent.
The Karnataka High Court set aside a penalty notice and order under Section 271DA for violating Section 269ST, holding the proceedings were time-barred. Following the K. Umesh Shetty precedent, the Court ruled that the delay between the AO’s reference and the penalty notice constituted unreasonable laches, vitiating the entire action.
