Income Tax : Learn about rectifying mistakes in income tax orders under Section 154, including types of rectifiable orders, responsible authori...
CA, CS, CMA : Discover the complexities of tax compliance for freelancers and gig workers, from understanding income sources to navigating legal...
Income Tax : Understand the penalty for failure to furnish income tax return. Learn about the increased late fees and provisions under Section ...
Income Tax : I have covered only relevant compliances/information useful for Small Manufacturer, Traders only through this article which includ...
Income Tax : While filing your income tax return within due date is important, it does not mean that if for any reason you missed the dead line...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill, 2017 proposes to levy fees of Rs.5,000 in case where return is furnished after the due date but on or before 31S...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot sets aside CIT(A)'s ex parte penalty orders against Sunita Ashokabhai Sharma due to incorrect email service by tax dep...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that department have acted contrary to the SOP under section 144B of the Income Tax Act violating the princ...
Income Tax : ITAT Raipur held that entire addition of transaction in the hands of assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplaine...
Income Tax : Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a notice during the Covid-19 pandemic was deleted due to disruptio...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai set aside the order and appeal restored back to the file of AO for denovo assessment, however, cost of Rs. 5,000 impo...
Read the detailed analysis of Amey Pravinbhai Brahmbhatt Vs ITO case where ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the penalty under section 271A for failure to fulfill conditions u/s 44 AA of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act on merely estimating that more income should have been earned from sub-contracting without bringing any comparable figures is unsustainable in law.
Delhi High Court nullifies penalty notice for Darpan Kohli, as the preceding assessment order was negated by the same court. Explore the full judgment.
ITAT Jaipur lifts penalty for Mukesh Pathaks late ITR filing, deeming it a bona fide mistake with no revenue loss as proper tax was already paid.
The ITAT Delhi quashes the penalty imposed under Section 271F against an 82-year-old widow for non-filing of Income Tax Return (ITR) as she had no taxable income.
ITAT Bangalore held that pre-clinical laboratory services rendered by the assessee (non-resident) to its customers in India would not be chargeable to tax in India as the technical services rendered by the affiliates do not “make available” technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process while preparing these reports for their, Indian customers/ clients.
Ignorance of tax obligations on income earned from a partnership doesn’t excuse late filing of Income Tax Returns. ITAT Mumbai upholds Section 271F penalty in a recent case involving an advocate and his late ITR filing.
Nagarathinam Rajendran Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Since the assessee could not file his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 F of the Act. There was no response from the assessee against the penalty notice. Since, the assessee failed to file his return […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalties under section 271(1)(b) and section 271F of the Income Tax Act are not leviable on reasonable cause demonstrated by the assessee.
ITAT Rajkot held that penalty under section 271F of the Income Tax Act not leviable as post search there was delay in providing seized documents. Further, Checking, cross checking and reconciliation of datas was a very lengthy process is also a reasonable cause for non-furnishing of income tax return.
