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 case examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when approval was obtained from an incorrect authority. The Court held the sanction invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirements, rendering the reassessment void. The ruling highlights strict adherence to approval hierarchy in reopening cases.
ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 270A as quantum addition was fully removed. Held that no under-reporting exists when assessed income equals returned income and TDS details are already on record.
The tribunal examined whether duty drawback should be taxed on accrual or actual receipt. It held that as per law, duty drawback is taxable only in the year of receipt, and additions based on accrual were unsustainable.
ITAT held that interest earned on bank deposits is taxable and not covered by the principle of mutuality. The ruling confirms that dealings with third parties break mutuality protection.
The Tribunal restored the penalty matter as the quantum addition was sent back to the AO. It held that penalty must follow the outcome of reassessment proceedings.
The issue was penalty for misreporting on sale of land classified as capital asset. The Tribunal held the issue was debatable and deleted the penalty.
The case examined whether disallowance under section 94(7) should be limited to exempt dividend. The Tribunal held that the provision applies to the full dividend received, rejecting the assessee’s claim.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to specify underreporting or misreporting in notice invalidates penalty. Proper identification of charge is mandatory for valid proceedings.
The issue involved denial of exemption on sale of agricultural land. The Tribunal held that the land met conditions of Section 2(14)(iii), making gains non-taxable. The case examined whether land sale constituted business income. The Tribunal ruled that absence of development or trading intent invalidated such classification.
The Tribunal upheld dismissal of appeal for non-payment of tax under Section 249(4)(b). However, it remanded the case after finding that the addition based on Form 26AS may be incorrect.
