Income Tax : Budget 2026 proposes allowing taxpayers to file an updated return even after receiving a reassessment notice under Section 148. Wh...
Income Tax : Misreporting under Section 270A(9) applies only to six specific circumstances. Where the assessment order does not clearly establi...
Income Tax : The law now proposes a single consolidated assessment-cum-penalty order for under-reporting of income, reducing multiple proceedin...
Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Income Tax : Section 270A penalties must specify the exact misreporting clause. Vague notices invalidate penalties and can restore immunity und...
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 Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 270A as quantum addition was fully removed. Held that no under-reporting exists when ass...
Income Tax : The tribunal examined whether duty drawback should be taxed on accrual or actual receipt. It held that as per law, duty drawback i...
Income Tax : ITAT held that interest earned on bank deposits is taxable and not covered by the principle of mutuality. The ruling confirms that...
Income Tax : The Tribunal restored the penalty matter as the quantum addition was sent back to the AO. It held that penalty must follow the out...
Income Tax : The issue was penalty for misreporting on sale of land classified as capital asset. The Tribunal held the issue was debatable and ...
Delhi ITAT held that a purchase-return mismatch does not constitute misreporting under section 270A(9). Immunity under section 270AA was granted, quashing the ₹10.69 lakh penalty.
The issue was whether the entire Section 80JJAA deduction could be rejected when some employees failed the 240-day condition. The Tribunal held that only ineligible employees’ costs can be disallowed, not the whole claim.
The issue was whether penalty for misreporting could be levied when income was disclosed but offered under an incorrect head. The Tribunal held that such a classification dispute does not amount to misreporting and deleted the penalty.
The issue was whether penalty could survive after the underlying assessment was quashed. The ITAT held that once the 153A assessment was annulled, the penalty under section 270A automatically fell.
The issue was whether satellite transmission fees constitute royalty in India. The Tribunal held that Article 12 of the DTAA governs and the receipts are not royalty. Domestic law amendments cannot override the treaty.
The High Court held that an assessment completed without granting a real opportunity to respond cannot stand. Ex parte reassessment and penalty orders were therefore set aside.
The issue was taxation of LLP partner’s remuneration without applying Sections 28(v) and 40(b). The High Court set aside the assessment for failure to consider the statutory scheme, remanding the matter for fresh decision.
The issue involved reassessment completed without a reply to the reopening notice. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity.
The High Court held that granting less than seven days to reply to a show-cause notice violates mandatory SOPs. Such a breach vitiates the entire faceless assessment process.
ITAT Hyderabad held that interest paid on account of delayed remittance of TDS cannot be treated as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order disallowing the same is upheld.
