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 ...
The Tribunal held that commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India. Consequently, no TDS obligation arises, and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
The issue was whether penalty under Section 270A is valid without specifying the exact charge. ITAT held that absence of a specific limb of misreporting makes the penalty invalid.
The case examined whether contract receipts reflected in Form 26AS but not disclosed as income could be taxed. The Tribunal upheld the addition, ruling that failure to report such receipts in any year makes them taxable in the year of receipt.
The Tribunal quashed penalty where the AO did not specify the exact limb of misreporting under Section 270A(9). It held that vague notices invalidate penalty proceedings. Key takeaway: specificity is mandatory for penalty levy.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes ₹11.03 lakh penalty under Section 270A(9), holding that non-filing of return followed by filing under Section 148 amounts to under-reporting, not misreporting; no penalty when returned income is accepted without variation.
Even though the assessee had no business operations, claims based on disclosed assets and records were held bona fide. The Tribunal ruled that such claims do not amount to inaccurate particulars or misreporting.
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 issue was whether donation to a political party qualified for deduction under Section 80GGC. The tribunal held the claim was not genuine and upheld disallowance due to lack of credibility.
ITAT held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval from the higher authority, not PCIT. Since approval was wrongly obtained, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The case examined whether transfer pricing adjustments could stand when an APA covered the relevant year. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration in line with the APA framework.
