Income Tax : Understand the consequences of an adverse income tax order, including high tax rates, penalties, interest, and steps to appeal or ...
Income Tax : Amendment in the provisions of section 272A of the Act Section 272A of the Act provides for penalty for failure to answer question...
Income Tax : As we all are aware that the TDS return process will consider as incomplete until the Valid TDS certificate has been issued by the...
Income Tax : The penalty provisions of section 272A of the Income Tax Act covers various penalty like failure to answer the questions or failur...
Income Tax : Due Date for downloading and Penalty for non-compliance: Please be advised that under the provisions of section 203 of the Income...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the assessee’s delayed appeals warranted condonation in light of an earlier decision on similar facts. Th...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive once the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Se...
Income Tax : The Jodhpur ITAT held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive where the Assessing Officer completed scrutiny asses...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when supported by prior bank withdrawals...
Income Tax : The High Court quashed assessment and penalty orders after finding notices were sent to an incorrect email address. It held that i...
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s delayed appeals warranted condonation in light of an earlier decision on similar facts. The appeals were sent back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive once the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) after accepting the assessee’s explanations and returned income.
The Jodhpur ITAT held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive where the Assessing Officer completed scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) after considering replies and documents furnished later by the assessee.
Delhi ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when supported by prior bank withdrawals. The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue must prove cash was spent elsewhere before invoking Section 69A.
The High Court quashed assessment and penalty orders after finding notices were sent to an incorrect email address. It held that improper service denied the taxpayer a fair hearing, violating natural justice. The case underscores the necessity of valid notice for lawful proceedings.
The case involved Penalty Under Section 272A(1)(d for failure to comply with notices during assessment. The Tribunal ruled that completion under section 143(3) negates the basis for penalty.
The ITAT Indore held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot survive where the assessment is completed under Section 143(3) after considering the taxpayer’s delayed submissions, as such compliance effectively condones earlier defaults.
Holding that actions prescribed by statute must be performed only in the specified manner, the Tribunal deleted the penalty. The case reinforces the importance of lawful service of notices before penal action.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s imposition of ₹30,000 was contrary to Section 272A(1)(d), which permits only ₹10,000 per statutory default. As only one true default existed, the excess penalty was deleted. Key takeaway: penalty must be grounded strictly in statutory authority, not administrative repetition.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) cannot be imposed when TDS delay is due to technical reasons and the assessee has already paid compounding charges and interest.
