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 : 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 ...
Income Tax : The case examined whether disallowance under section 94(7) should be limited to exempt dividend. The Tribunal held that the provis...
The High Court held that once a resolution plan under IBC extinguishes prior tax liabilities, reassessment cannot be initiated. The notice under Section 148 was set aside. The ruling confirms that extinguished claims cannot be revived through reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed after the prescribed time limit is invalid. It ruled that limitation begins from the date DRP directions are uploaded on the ITBA portal.
The Tribunal held that GST collected is not part of income for presumptive taxation under section 44B. It ruled that GST is a statutory levy and cannot be treated as revenue.
The issue was whether CSR expenditure qualifies for deduction under section 80G. The Tribunal held that deduction is allowable as there is no specific prohibition except for certain funds.
ITAT held that where interest-free funds exceed advances, a presumption arises that such advances are made from own funds. Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted as no nexus with borrowed funds was proven.
The Tribunal held that the TPO failed to consider the assessee’s Internal CUP benchmarking despite directions from the DRP. It directed fresh examination using the correct method and excluded certain NCDs from adjustment.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of HRA exemption under Section 10(13A) as the assessee failed to submit any supporting documents for rent payments. In the absence of evidence, the claim of ₹1,08,000 was rightly disallowed.
The ITAT Ranchi held that Section 56(2)(x) cannot apply where the property purchase agreement was executed before the provision existed, even if the sale deed was registered later.
The tribunal examined whether penalties could continue when the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating them. It ruled that absence of such satisfaction makes the penalties invalid in law.
ITAT Chennai deletes Sec 270A penalty, ruling 200% penalty for misreporting cannot be imposed without specifying clause of Sec 270A(9) or proper reasoning.
