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 : This FAQ serves as a reference for the Income-tax Act provisions relating to cash receipts, loans, repayments, and electronic paym...
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 : ITAT held the Section 271D penalty was time-barred under Section 275(1)(c) as it was imposed after the prescribed limitation perio...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessme...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D is invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment o...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessme...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of the Section 271D penalty, holding that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment or...
Income Tax : It is a settled position that period of limitation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by th...
Income Tax : It has been brought to notice of CBDT that there are conflicting interpretations of various High Courts on the issue whether the l...
This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences of tax defaults ranging from monetary penalties to imprisonment for serious violations.
ITAT held the Section 271D penalty was time-barred under Section 275(1)(c) as it was imposed after the prescribed limitation period.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment order.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D is invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment order.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment order.
Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of the Section 271D penalty, holding that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment order made the penalty unsustainable.
ITAT Surat held that absence of satisfaction in the assessment order invalidated the Section 271D penalty, following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty under Section 271D could not survive where the assessment order contained no satisfaction for initiating such proceedings. The penalty was quashed for lack of valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271D could not be levied because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction for initiating such proceedings in the assessment order. The penalty was cancelled following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment order. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, both pnalties were cancelled.
