Penalty levied u/s 271F - Return of income (ITR) was filed in ...

Income Tax

May 12, 2023

Penalty levied u/s 271F - Return of income (ITR) was filed in time but could be e-verified due to health issues - Since the delay in doing E-verification/filing belated return is neither willful nor wanton and the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause, no penalty - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty levied u/s 271F - Return of income (ITR) was filed in ...

Income Tax

May 12, 2023

You may also like:

Addition u/s 68 - Violation of provisions of section 269SS - unexplained cash deposit - Violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act calls for penalty u/s...

TDS u/s 195 - disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) - allowability of expenditure u/s 37(1) - there is no question of alternating between section 37(1) of the I.T.Act and section...

Penalty u/s 271F - not filing the return of income (ITR) - It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of Section 273B categorically mentions that penalty u/s 271F...

Extension for last date of filing initial return in MSME Form I

Penalty proceedings u/s 271F and prosecution u/s 276CC - the petitioner-Society will not be fully justified in taking a stand that they will not file their return of Income - HC

Penalty u/s 271F - failure to furnish return of income (ITR) - the assessee’s total income without giving effect to the provision of section 54 come to ₹...

Deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)(a)(i) - Due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(1) - The assessee cannot be denied deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act if...

Allowance of bad debts - Provision made was pre-matured - It was only contingent liability or notional loss which could not be allowed as an expenditure under provisions...

Penalty u/s 271F - assessee could not file the return of income because of preoccupation of the employment - there was a refund due, non filing of return of income...

Levy of penalty u/s 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Smuggling - The reason for imposing the impugned penalty is that the appellant has not verified the Let Export...

Quick Updates: