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...
Rajasthan High Court quashes penalty proceedings under Section 271E of Income Tax Act citing lack of satisfaction recording in reassessment orders.
Income Tax Act amendments propose penalties by Assessing Officers instead of Joint Commissioners. Omission of section 271BB and changes to section 246A included.
ITAT Kolkata held the penalty under section 271E of the Income Tax Act not leviable since in the present case there was no repayment of loan received from the members but it was loan disbursed to members. Accordingly, revenue appeal dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that reference by AO to JCIT regarding non-deduction of TDS was first step for initiation of action for imposition of penalty. Accordingly, penalty order passed by JCIT levying penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act is barred by limitation.
Delhi High Court held that passing of penalty order after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO is untenable. Thus, penalty order set aside as passed beyond time period framed u/s. 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act not leviable in terms of section 273B of the Income Tax Act since claim of exemption u/s. 54 is made in an open and bonafide manner.
Madras High Court held that the Assessment Officer has not recorded the reasons for arriving at a subjective satisfaction to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271E of the Act, which is mandatory. Thus, order set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty u/s. 269D and 269E of the Income Tax Act without clear finding along with authentic evidence that provisions of section 269SS and 269T are violated is unsustainable.
ITAT Cochin held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act in consolidated manner is unjustified as AO has to point out each entry where such acceptance or repayment is Rs. 20,000/- or more.
ITAT Bangalore held that imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act unwarranted as reasonable cause shown for accepting the cash on account of sale of immovable property.
