Income Tax : Understand the three core processes of Indian Income Tax: Rectification of mistakes (Sec 154), the four types of Assessment (Summa...
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 : The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond the statutory six-year limitation period is invalid. It ruled that expired ...
Income Tax : The issue was whether delay in filing appeal without strong documentary proof should be condoned. The ITAT held that when sufficie...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that admitting additional evidence without seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer breaches Rule 46A...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that penalty for non-response to notices cannot survive when the assessee later participates in the assessment ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is un...
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.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 271F of the Income Tax Act leviable as assessee being a habitual defaulter filed income tax return for four years filed belatedly
Kanhaiya Lal Lalwani Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) It is noted that the cost of acquisition of plot as per the assessee was Rs. 555/- purchased on 16-04-1999 and thereafter addition/ improvement of Rs.3,41,000/- was made. In my view, if these benefits were allowed to the assessee then in that eventuality the capital gain arose on […]
Assessee has shown reasonable cause for not filing the return of income before due date of return. ITAT direct AO to delete penalty levied under Section 271F
Held that penalty u/s 271F leviable as the assessee being a co-operative bank failed to furnish annual information annual information return
Sudhi Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) Assessee has filed her return of income at one place i.e. at Kolkata under her PAN A****2218B and the transactions done under PAN A****6846F are also duly reported and disclosed in the said return of income. No doubt has been shown by the revenue authorities on this contention of […]
Assessee contended that CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty under section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 5,000 for failure to file return of income in response to the notice issued under section 148.
