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 ruled that penalty under Section 270A cannot survive when income is assessed purely on estimated gross profit after rejecting books. Additions based on estimation do not amount to under-reporting or misreporting of income.
The dispute involved additions made despite small variations between agreement value and stamp duty value. The Tribunal ruled that differences within 10% are immune from Section 43CA, granting relief for genuine transactions.
The Court held that adjusting refunds beyond 20% of a disputed penalty during a pending appeal violates CBDT instructions and ordered refund of the excess amount.
Reopenings based on assumptions, conjecture, or generalized allegations were struck down. The ruling reiterates that reasons must show tangible material, application of mind, and a live nexus with escaped income.
The decision clarifies that voluntary admission and taxation of income post-search does not ipso facto warrant penalty. Absence of contumacious conduct weighed against the Revenue.
The tribunal examined whether a Singapore entity could claim DTAA exemption on capital gains from sale of Indian shares. It held that treaty benefits were unavailable as the entity lacked commercial substance and functioned as a shell or conduit.
The law now proposes a single consolidated assessment-cum-penalty order for under-reporting of income, reducing multiple proceedings and long-drawn uncertainty for taxpayers.
The Tribunal ruled that withdrawing a deduction in response to a Section 148 notice does not erase underreporting. Penalty for misrepresentation under Section 270A was upheld.
The Tribunal considered whether a penalty can stand independently while the core addition is pending fresh adjudication. It ruled that penalty cannot precede final determination of income and must be deleted at this stage.
The addition on shares contributed to a family trust was deleted as the trust was exclusively for the benefit of relatives. Section 56(2)(x) does not apply where the statutory exemption conditions are satisfied.
