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 ...
Where the extent of inflated purchases cannot be quantified and is restricted to a nominal percentage, penalty provisions do not apply. The ruling reinforces the distinction between estimated additions and proven concealment.
It was held that applying Sections 69/69A read with Section 115BBE without examining penalty under Section 271AAC justified revision. The PCIT’s direction to reframe the assessment was sustained.
The case examined taxability of stamp duty differential in the hands of a housewife joint owner. The Tribunal ruled that absence of financial contribution bars addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The ITAT ruled that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment order bars initiation of penalty under Section 271E. Supervisory revision cannot substitute the Assessing Officer’s statutory discretion.
The Assessing Officer made an ALP adjustment on interest despite the assessee having already added back the full amount under thin capitalization rules. The Tribunal ruled that TP provisions cannot be applied where no expenditure is claimed.
ITAT Pune held that penalty not leviable under section 270A of the Income Tax Act since show cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb u/s. 270A(9) under which the penalty was imposed. Accordingly, penalty is quashed and appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 14A cannot be invoked where borrowed funds were not used to earn exempt income. Disallowance was deleted after finding investments were made from interest-free funds.
The Tribunal ruled that ad hoc disallowance is unsustainable when books are not rejected. Disallowance was reduced to 8% based on facts and past practice.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, AO directed to recompute book profit after allowing indexation.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on Insight Portal inputs without independent application of mind is invalid. Since the reassessment itself failed, the addition of share LTCG as unexplained income under section 68 could not survive.
