Income Tax : This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the appli...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be levied merely because income was estimated after rejection of books. Si...
Income Tax : The article explains how transactions between associated domestic entities exceeding ₹20 crore must comply with arm's length pri...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles o...
Income Tax : Budget 2026 proposes allowing taxpayers to file an updated return even after receiving a reassessment notice under Section 148. Wh...
Income Tax : Explore amendments to section 253 of Income-tax Act, adjusting time limits for filing appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that IT, salary and travel reimbursements without any profit element were not taxable and deleted the disallowance...
Income Tax : ITAT held that an Assessing Officer cannot substitute the DCF method chosen under Rule 11UA with the NAV method without legal just...
Income Tax : ITAT held ₹33 crore settled rights over the entire land, allowing full indexed acquisition cost and rejecting proportionate rest...
Income Tax : ITAT excluded EDCIL, Just Dial, Info Edge and India Exposition Mart as transfer pricing comparables due to functional differences ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that a penalty notice lacking a specific allegation of under-reporting, misreporting, or the applicable clause ...
ITAT Delhi held that IT, salary and travel reimbursements without any profit element were not taxable and deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i).
ITAT held that an Assessing Officer cannot substitute the DCF method chosen under Rule 11UA with the NAV method without legal justification.
ITAT held ₹33 crore settled rights over the entire land, allowing full indexed acquisition cost and rejecting proportionate restriction by the AO.
ITAT excluded EDCIL, Just Dial, Info Edge and India Exposition Mart as transfer pricing comparables due to functional differences and restored one comparable for verification.
The Tribunal ruled that a penalty notice lacking a specific allegation of under-reporting, misreporting, or the applicable clause under Section 271AAB is legally defective. It held that such notices violate the requirement of providing a meaningful opportunity of defence.
Delhi High Court held the ITAT failed to properly examine the ‘make available’ test for secondment payments, set aside its order, and ruled for the Revenue.
ITAT Mumbai held that a deduction claim supported by prevailing judicial precedents cannot attract Section 270A penalty merely because a later retrospective amendment made the claim inadmissible. The penalty for under-reporting of income was deleted.
ITAT deleted the Section 68 addition after holding that the assessee fully established the lender, source of funds and genuineness.
The Tribunal held that additions not proposed in the original draft assessment order and unsupported by DRP directions could not be sustained. It reaffirmed that the statutory process under Section 144C must be followed before making prejudicial variations.
The ITAT held that non-reporting of capital gains from redemption of mutual funds amounted to underreporting resulting from misreporting of income. It upheld the penalty under Section 270A after finding failure to record receipts affecting total income.
