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...
Tribunal condoned a 938-day delay after finding that the appeal was incorrectly dismissed as withdrawn under VSVS. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the additions made under section 143(3).
CIT(A) set aside penalties imposed for violations of Sections 269SS and 269T, as they were issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The ruling reaffirms that late penalty orders are invalid even if violations occurred.
Gujarat High Court upheld the deletion of a Section 271D penalty, ruling that the assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating proceedings. No substantial question of law was found, and the appeal was dismissed.
ITAT Indore held that the registered sale-deed would relate back to and have effect from 26.03.2013 falling with previous year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 and hence the impugned transaction of sale was taxable in AY 2013-14 and not in 2014-15. Accordingly, reopening of assessment for AY 2014-2015 is illegal and unsustainable.
ITAT Chandigarh deleted a Rs.20 lakh penalty levied under Section 271D for a cash deposit violating Section 269SS. The Tribunal ruled the deposit was a temporary parking of funds by the father for security, not a loan or deposit.
ITAT Dehradun accepted ₹15 lakh from poplar tree sales as explained income and ruled that Section 115BBE applies prospectively from 1 April 2017. Tribunal granted partial relief, deleting major additions made on demonetisation cash deposits.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reassessment for two assessment years, ruling it was invalid as the reopening occurred beyond the four-year limit from the original scrutiny assessment without any allegation of the taxpayer failing to disclose material facts. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s mandate under the first proviso to Section 147.
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.
The ITAT ruled that seized parallel Tally data, reflecting higher sales and income, constitutes reliable incriminating material, validating assessments made under Section 153A. The tribunal sustained additions for higher gross profit and unexplained credits after the taxpayer failed to disprove the parallel records’ accuracy, reinforcing the presumption under Section 292C.
ITAT Pune held that sum has been received for work relating to interior and other finishing work and total consideration is received through banking channel. Hence, there is no violation of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Hence, penalty u/s. 271D not leviable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
