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 : Discover penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, including default conditions, quantum of penalties, and potent...
Income Tax : ITAT upholds penalty against taxpayer for cash repayment of loans, contravening Section 269T of Income-tax Act. Explore implicatio...
Income Tax : Explore the impact of Income Tax Sections 269SS, 269ST, 269SU, and 269T on transactions via Journal/Book Entries. Learn about legi...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur sets aside addition and penalty against Mukesh Kumar Agarwal due to lack of valid jurisdiction and time-barred penalty...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata removes ₹1 crore penalty under Sec 271E, ruling cash transaction between sister concerns as reimbursement, not loan...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur quashes penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act in Anil Sharma vs. ITO due to absent recorded satisfaction....
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court held that imposition of penalty under section 271DA of the Income Tax Act is justifiable since there is no inordi...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that penalty order under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act has to be passed within reasonable time. Sin...
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...
ITAT Jaipur sets aside addition and penalty against Mukesh Kumar Agarwal due to lack of valid jurisdiction and time-barred penalty order.
ITAT Kolkata removes ₹1 crore penalty under Sec 271E, ruling cash transaction between sister concerns as reimbursement, not loan repayment.
ITAT Jaipur quashes penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act in Anil Sharma vs. ITO due to absent recorded satisfaction.
Delhi High Court held that imposition of penalty under section 271DA of the Income Tax Act is justifiable since there is no inordinately and inexplicably delay in initiation of penalty proceedings. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty order under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act has to be passed within reasonable time. Since, the penalty order is not passed within reasonable time, the same is liable to be quashed.
Assessee contended that there was no violation of provisions of sec.269T since the security deposits were obtained through banking channels and were only adjusted towards the outstanding dues.
ITAT Amritsar held that there is no violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act when cash payment was made at one go before sub-registrar at the time of registration of sale deed. Accordingly, penalty under section 271D deleted.
Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifications on Section 271AAB.
Supreme Court rules on penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act in CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills. Find out how assessment order impacts penalty proceedings.
Rajasthan High Court quashes penalty proceedings under Section 271E of Income Tax Act citing lack of satisfaction recording in reassessment orders.
