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 : Discover penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, including default conditions, quantum of penalties, and potent...
Income Tax : Stay updated with the latest TDS compliance under Section 192 of the I.T. Act, emphasizing the importance of Form 12BB for employe...
Income Tax : Madras High Court upholds ITAT ruling that Viswapriya Financial Services had reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS under Secti...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court quashes Commissioner’s order upholding penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for failure to deduct T...
Income Tax : Supreme Court emphasizes reasonable cause for TDS non-deduction under Section 271C. Highlights interplay of Sections 4, 5, 9, and ...
Income Tax : Karnataka HC quashed penalty imposed under Section 201 of Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS on professional advice, citing s...
Income Tax : In the recent ruling Hon'ble HC have observed that penalty proceedings, initiated u/s 271 D is barred by delay & laches as period ...
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee has not committed any violation of provision of Chapter XVII B of the Act by making payment towards External Development Charges (EDC) to Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana (Haryana Government) (DGTCP) through banking channel favoring Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of action u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of shortfall in TDS on year end provisions reported in Form 3CD of the assessee cannot be faulted. Accordingly, matter remanded to AO.
An analysis of ITAT Delhi’s order in ITO Vs Santur Builders Pvt Ltd, stating that TDS is not applicable on EDC payments to HUDA on behalf of State Government.
Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Unity Dye Chem Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT case. Penalty under section 271C not applicable if TDS non-deduction supported by Form 15G/H.
In a landmark ruling, Delhi High Court quashes TDS penal action against DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt Ltd for the FY 2013-14. Detailed verdict here.
ITAT Delhi, in the ACIT Vs TV Today Network Ltd case, ruled that no penalty for failure to deduct TDS is applicable if the assessee added back the expense on which the tax was not deducted.
ITAT Indore held that non-deduction of TDS due to genuine and bona fide belief is reasonable cause under section 273B and accordingly penalty u/s 271C not imposable.
ITAT Jaipur held that being a debatable issue there was a reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS on specified transactions and accordingly penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act not justified.
No penalty is envisaged under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction and for belated remittance /payment/deposit of the TDS.
SC held that no penalty shall be leviable under Section 271C of Income Tax Act for mere belated remittance of TDS after deducting
