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 : 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 : This article outlines major penalties under the Income-tax Act for defaults involving tax payments, return filing, TDS compliance,...
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 : ITAT Surat held that absence of satisfaction in the assessment order invalidated the Section 271D penalty, following the Supreme C...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to record a clear and consci...
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 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.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to record a clear and conscious satisfaction regarding violation of Section 269ST in the assessment order. The ruling reiterates that such satisfaction is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
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.
The ITAT held that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction regarding violations of Sections 269SS and 269T in the assessment order. The Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.
The ITAT held that an untested third-party statement, without supporting evidence or cross-examination, cannot form the sole basis for imposing penalty under Section 271D. It deleted the penalty after finding the Revenue failed to establish the alleged cash loan.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash transactions between close family members do not constitute loans or deposits under Sections 269SS and 269T. Following the Gujarat High Court’s precedent, it deleted penalties under Sections 271D and 271E.
