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 Kolkata quashed the reassessment for two assessment years, ruling it was invalid as the reopening occurred beyond the four-ye...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT condones 98-day delay and restores penalty appeals u/s 271D/271E, directing CIT(A) to re-examine the genuine nature...
Income Tax : Cuttack ITAT cancels penalties under sections 271D and 271E, ruling that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction in the ass...
Income Tax : The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal quashes penalties for being time-barred and invalidates a reassessment notice, clarifying...
Income Tax : AO held that assessee had made repayment of the loan to M/s. Tata Finance Corporation in that financial year to the extent of Rs. ...
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...
Read the full text of the ITAT Bangalore order in Laxmilal Badolla Vs NFAC. Penalty under Sec 271D cancelled due to reasonable cause, detailed analysis and conclusion included.
Penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed if assessment proceedings are quashed. Detailed analysis of Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) and its implications.
Detailed analysis of ITO vs Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd. case before ITAT Delhi. Penalty order deemed invalid due to limitation.
Calcutta High Court held that share application money or its repayment does not fall under Section 269SS & 269T, as the same are not loans or deposits, and do not attract penalties under Sections 271D and 271E of Income Tax Act.
Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. ACIT case: ITAT Kolkata directs re-evaluation as AO misinterpreted PCIT’s orders on loan payments.
ITAT upholds penalty against taxpayer for cash repayment of loans, contravening Section 269T of Income-tax Act. Explore implications and alternatives.
Explore the case of DCIT Vs Platinum Towers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) regarding personal expenses treated as income, penalties under Section 269SS, and conclusions on the matter.
Explore the impact of Income Tax Sections 269SS, 269ST, 269SU, and 269T on transactions via Journal/Book Entries. Learn about legislative framework, judicial interpretations, and penalties.
ITAT Delhi cancels penalty imposed under section 271E of the Income Tax Act on Pawan Kumar for loan repayment via bank transfer, challenging jurisdiction and citing legal grounds. Full text of the order included.
Sunil Dandriyal vs JCIT case underscores significance of understanding the correct starting point for calculating the time limit for penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The decision reinforces the principle that the initiation of penalty proceedings by the AO, rather than the issuance of a show-cause notice by the JCIT, triggers the commencement of the statutory time limit.
