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 ...
Misreporting under Section 270A(9) applies only to six specific circumstances. Where the assessment order does not clearly establish that the case falls within those clauses, the enhanced 200% penalty becomes legally vulnerable.
The Court granted ad-interim relief, holding prima facie that no under-reporting arose where deduction was claimed based on a binding High Court judgment later overruled. Coercive recovery was stayed.
The Tribunal held that immunity from penalty requires strict compliance with statutory conditions, and absence of proof of Form 68 filing disentitles relief.
Orissa High Court held that post search operation all pending assessments/reassessments doesn’t not automatically get abated as provisions of section 158BA(2) of the Income Tax Act. Matter must specifically fall within Block Assessment Scheme for abatement. However, writ dismissed as power under Article 226 not invoked.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹13.32 lakh penalty u/s 270A, holding bona fide exemption claim by charitable trust not misreporting; 200% penalty unsustainable.
The ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under Section 270A for alleged underreporting and misreporting of income could not survive once the Karnataka High Court condoned the delay in filing the return and restored the assessee’s eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA.
ITAT Mumbai held that the provision for leave encashment made on actuarial basis constitutes an ascertained liability and is allowable as deduction. Accordingly, the said ground is allowed.
The addition under Section 68 was deleted as capital introduced by partners is not a loan or unexplained credit of the firm. Enquiry into partners creditworthiness must be conducted separately in their cases.
The Tribunal observed that merely using the term misreporting without linking it to any specific statutory limb is insufficient. It quashed the penalty, reiterating that penal proceedings must be precise and legally justified.
The Tribunal upheld 200% penalty under Section 270A for misreporting income through ineligible deductions. Admitted incorrect claims were treated as conscious misrepresentation, not a bonafide error.
