Topic
ITAT Jaipur rules that penalties in search cases must be levied under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, not Section 271(1)(c). The ruling clarifies the correct penalty framework for undisclosed income detected during search assessments, impacting taxpayers facing similar proceedings.
The ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that discrepancies between Form 26AS TDS credits and declared income, without evidence of intentional concealment, amount to underreporting - not misreporting - under Section 270A. This reduces penalty exposure from 200% to 50%, offering critical relief to businesses with clerical or documentation gaps in commission reporting.
Kerala High Court holds that once a miner avails the statutory reduction scheme under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, the penalty under Rule 108 cannot be waived. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with penalty provisions, impacting miners and state authorities in enforcement actions.
Himachal Pradesh High Court sets aside a Rs. 10,000 penalty under the RTI Act, ruling that personal information of third parties is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) unless disclosure serves a larger public interest. The judgment reinforces privacy protections while mandating transparency only when accountability outweighs individual rights.
Karnataka High Court sets aside a ₹5,000 penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, ruling that manual compilation of voluminous data justifies delay where no mala fide or urgency is established. The judgment reinforces that penalties must consider administrative realities, not just statutory timelines.
CESTAT Mumbai quashes redemption fine and penalty under Sections 111(l), 111(m), and 114A of the Customs Act, ruling that a 13% excess in declared surface area-attributable to measurement methodology-does not constitute deliberate misdeclaration. The Tribunal emphasized that penalties require proof of mens rea, offering relief to importers facing disproportionate liabilities for minor discrepancies.
ITAT Lucknow sets aside a ₹40,000 penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) after finding the assessee had valid grounds for failing to comply with notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). The ruling reinforces that penalties cannot be sustained without disproving the assessee’s reasonable cause defence, offering relief to taxpayers facing procedural non-compliance.
ITAT Delhi sets aside a ₹40,000 penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2), ruling that penalties are unwarranted if no revenue prejudice is established. The decision reinforces that procedural lapses alone cannot justify penalties absent demonstrable harm to tax authorities.
CESTAT rules that a customs broker cannot be penalized under Section 117 of the Customs Act for exporting controlled substances like Ergotamine without a No Objection Certificate (NOC), as CBLR 2018 requires a specific penalty provision. The decision underscores that general penalty clauses cannot override regulatory compliance mandates under NDPS regulations.
ITAT Delhi holds that Section 234E penalty cannot be imposed when TDS return is filed on time initially and a duplicate filing occurs due to technical non-reflection in Form 26AS.