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 : 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 : ITAT Delhi held that levy of penalty under Section 271D requires pending or completed assessment proceedings containing findings o...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that unverified third-party excel sheets without corroborative evidence cannot justify additions under Sections 69 o...
Income Tax : The ITAT ruled that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record satisfaction in as...
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...
The Tribunal held that once cash received was accepted in assessment without any addition, penalty for alleged violation of Section 269SS could not be sustained.
Upholding the appellate authority, the Tribunal confirmed that jurisdiction cannot be assumed casually against a non-searched person. Statutory satisfaction requirements are mandatory, not procedural.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty orders under section 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act passed beyond 6 months from end of the month in which assessments were completed is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal of revenue stands dismissed.
Court ruled that repayment of sums in cash violates Section 269T and attracts penalty under Section 271E, even when the same sums were treated as income under Section 68 in an earlier assessment.
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.
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.
A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misreporting income and non-compliance with compliance. Learn about financial penalties and potential rigorous imprisonment for serious tax offenses.
Bangalore ITAT condones 98-day delay and restores penalty appeals u/s 271D/271E, directing CIT(A) to re-examine the genuine nature of cash received and repaid to a paternal uncle for education.
Cuttack ITAT cancels penalties under sections 271D and 271E, ruling that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction in the assessment order before initiating penalty proceedings.
