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 ITAT held that an assessment made in the name of an amalgamated company is void ab initio, even where proceedings continued after merger intimation.
The Tribunal held that when an eligible assessee fails to file objections before the DRP within time, a direct appeal to the Tribunal is barred. Non-compliance with section 144C renders the appeal non-maintainable.
The ruling clarifies that penalty cannot be levied merely because expenses are partly disallowed on estimation. Absence of under-reporting or misreporting defeats the penalty action.
Setting aside the lower authorities orders, the Tribunal ruled that reliance on amalgamation-related precedents was misplaced. It reaffirmed that goodwill from a slump sale is depreciable when not hit by statutory restrictions.
The issue was denial of income-tax exemption to a statutory welfare board. The Court held that a subsequent government notification granting section 10(46) exemption resolved the dispute and nullified the pending tax demand and penalty.
The issue was whether income disclosed during survey and duly reported in the return can attract penalty under Section 270A. The Tribunal held that when returned income equals assessed income, penalty provisions do not apply.
The Tribunal condoned a 506-day delay after accepting that the appeal was filed only when heavy penalty exposure created prosecution risk. The key takeaway is that bona fide reliance on legal advice and later developments can constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be levied where the assessee voluntarily withdrew the education cess claim after a retrospective amendment. A bona fide claim made on prevailing judicial views does not amount to under-reporting or misreporting.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 270A cannot stand where income is enhanced purely by estimation. Additions made by applying a higher profit rate, without incriminating material, fall outside under-reporting.
It was ruled that deciding appeals based on facts of another year is a serious legal error. The matter was sent back for reconsideration on correct facts.
