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 examined whether penalties could continue when the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating them. It ruled that absence of such satisfaction makes the penalties invalid in law.
ITAT Chennai deletes Sec 270A penalty, ruling 200% penalty for misreporting cannot be imposed without specifying clause of Sec 270A(9) or proper reasoning.
The court held that transfer pricing adjustments cannot automatically be treated as misreporting of income. Without evidence of deliberate concealment, penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of ₹19.27 lakh under Section 69A after finding that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence explaining the source of cash deposits. The explanation regarding gold loans and family transactions remained unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that immunity under Section 270AA cannot be denied due to technical issues in filing Form 68. The penalty under Section 270A was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
The court ruled that submitting revised returns showing higher income after a search does not wipe out earlier concealment. Criminal proceedings for wilful tax evasion and false statements remain maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the taxpayer had filed Form 68 seeking immunity from penalty but the request was rejected without due process. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the immunity claim in accordance with law.
Budget 2026 proposes allowing taxpayers to file an updated return even after receiving a reassessment notice under Section 148. While this creates a compliance window to settle disputes, it also imposes an additional 10% levy on tax and interest to encourage faster resolution.
The tribunal ruled that reallocating management expenses to the profit and loss account under IRDA regulations does not violate law and therefore cannot justify disallowance under the Income-tax Act.
Bain & Company Vs D/ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi arose from a final assessment order dated 18 December 2024 passed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a foreign company […]
