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...
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Tribunal condoned a 938-day delay after finding that the appeal was incorrectly dismissed as withdrawn under VSVS.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.
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.
The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal quashes penalties for being time-barred and invalidates a reassessment notice, clarifying key tax law provisions on limitation and sanctioning authority.
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. 6,71,939 in cash against the loan taken for commercial vehicle.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that reasonable cause has been shown for non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 269T of the Act and further it is not disputed that the transaction is genuine and bona fide.
ITAT Pune held that delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) condoned due to company’s financial position and non-pursuing of appeals by tax consultant. Accordingly, matter remitted to file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
