Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
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 : 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 Delhi held that the PCIT exceeded jurisdiction by introducing issues not mentioned in the Section 263 show-cause notice. The ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that where reassessment is based on documents seized during a search on another person, proceedings must be initi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai ruled that once reassessment proceedings are quashed as void ab initio, the satisfaction recorded therein for initiati...
Income Tax : The Hyderabad ITAT held that only the actual period lost during the limitation period can be excluded under Explanation-1 to Secti...
Income Tax : The Telangana High Court set aside a penalty under Section 271D after finding that the assessment order contained no recorded sati...
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 Delhi held that the PCIT exceeded jurisdiction by introducing issues not mentioned in the Section 263 show-cause notice. The revision order was quashed for travelling beyond the scope of the proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai held that where reassessment is based on documents seized during a search on another person, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C and not Section 147.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that once reassessment proceedings are quashed as void ab initio, the satisfaction recorded therein for initiating penalty proceedings cannot survive independently. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Jaya Lakshmi Rice Mills.
The Hyderabad ITAT held that only the actual period lost during the limitation period can be excluded under Explanation-1 to Section 153. It ruled that the assessment order passed beyond the permissible period was invalid.
The Telangana High Court set aside a penalty under Section 271D after finding that the assessment order contained no recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. The Court held that Supreme Court precedent on mandatory satisfaction was binding on tax authorities.
ITAT Delhi held that levy of penalty under Section 271D requires pending or completed assessment proceedings containing findings on Section 269SS violation. Since no regular assessment was framed, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The ITAT held that unverified third-party excel sheets without corroborative evidence cannot justify additions under Sections 69 or 69A. The Tribunal observed that mere electronic entries amount to dumb documents unless independently verified.
The ITAT ruled that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record satisfaction in assessment or related proceedings. Since no assessment proceedings existed in the case, the penalty was held unsustainable in law.
he issue was whether penalty under Section 271E can stand after deletion of the underlying addition. The tribunal held that once the addition is deleted, the penalty loses its foundation and must be cancelled.
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS does not apply when cash is received as part of final sale consideration at the time of property registration. Since no advance was involved, penalty under Section 271D was deleted.
