Tag: income tax penalty
No penalty can be levied if AO failed to record such satisfaction in assessment order. Penalty proceedings would necessarily be initiated in the quantum assessment order itself. In a recent judgment, ITAT has deleted income tax penalty u/s 271D and 271E holding that no penalty can be levied …
Under section 271AAB undisclosed income also means additional income due to bogus expense recorded in the books of accounts – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3820 (2023) (11) ITAT Important Case Laws relied upon by parties:ACIT vs. Sri Mahender Kumar AgarwalCIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, 70 taxmann.com 95 Radhey …
No penalty u/s 271F as due to mistake of DDO wrong PAN was mentioned in 26AS and assessee was precluded from filing the return of income – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3808 (2023) (09) ITAT In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by …
Only five days time allowed to reply questionnaire was not sufficient opportunity. ITAT deletes penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3786 (2023) (08) ITAT In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax …
Penalty u/s 271B deleted as assessee was not aware that section 44AB related to Tax Audit was applicable to him as he was only a commission agent ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3757 (2023) (05) ITAT In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the …
Penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) deleted as counsel misled by filing inaccurate return and not informed of assessment and penalty notices ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3750 (2023) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws relied upon:Triumph International Finance India Ltd vs DCIT In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order …
Penalty u/s 271D initiated when assessee was alive but order invalid if passed in the name of assessee after his death ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3733 (2023) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws relied upon:ITO v. Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai 131 taxmann.com 40 (SC)ITO vs. Durlabhbhai Kanubhai Rajpara 114 taxmann.com …
No penalty u/s 271C on mere delay in deposit of TDS after deduction – Supreme Court No penalty can be levied u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act 1961 on mere delay in deposit of TDS after its deduction – Supreme Court In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble …
Income Tax Penalty u/s 271AAB deleted as assessee was declaring income on presumptive basis, was not required to maintain books and addition was made on estimated basis. ABCAUS Neutral Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3680 (2023) (03) ITAT In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by …
Assessing agriculture income as business income no basis for imposing penalty u/s 271A as it would not ipso facto lead to conclusion that assessee was aware of the requirement maintaining books of accounts u/s 44AA ABCAUS Neutral Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3677 (2023) (02) ITAT In the instant case, …
