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 ...
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot suffer due to the AO’s inaction under section 270AA(4), directing grant of immunity and cancelling the 270A penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s delayed filing was bona fide due to disputes and legal ambiguities, and the declared income was fully accepted. No penalty under Section 270A was warranted.
The Tribunal emphasized that an error regarding VRS exemption made by a salaried, non-technical taxpayer cannot be classified as deliberate under-reporting. With no false claim or suppression, the 270A penalty was deleted.
Since the 14A disallowance was already struck down on the ground that no exempt income was earned, the Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A had no legal basis. It ruled that penalty cannot survive once the underlying quantum addition ceases to exist. The key takeaway is that penalty collapses automatically when its foundation is eliminated.
The Tribunal ruled that a cess deduction claim based on favourable jurisprudence cannot trigger penalty. Compliance with Section 155(18), including timely Form 69 filing, protected the assessee from under-reporting allegations.
Additions for alleged on-money payments were disallowed because the evidence relied on by authorities contained errors and lacked authenticity. The decision highlights the need for corroborated, primary evidence in tax proceedings.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer after the faceless regime came into force were without authority. All related proceedings were quashed, and the ITAT appeal was directed to be closed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A could not stand because the JPACK ledger titled “SABARI” was not proven to belong to the assessee. The ruling emphasises lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in the seized material.
The ITAT remitted the issue to the CIT(A), noting that exemption provisions were wrongly applied to a non-qualifying investor. The takeaway is that exemption claims in share premium cases must match statutory definitions and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority failed to pass a reasoned order under Section 250(6) and remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing that proper opportunity be given to the assessee.
