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 Tribunal ruled that the lease rentals received by Irish residents were exempt from tax in India under Article 8 of the treaty, following precedent on operating leases. The ruling affirms that the DTAA explicitly covers the rental of aircraft (including helicopters) in international traffic.
ITAT Delhi ruled that a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Mauritius is sufficient proof of residency to claim benefits under the India-Mauritius DTAA. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s attempt to deny treaty protection based on vague allegations of the assessee being a paper/shell company.
Since Netflix India functioned solely as a limited-risk distributor of access, not as a licensee of content or technology, therfore, TNMM benchmarking was accepted, and the royalty-based TP adjustment of ₹444.93 crores was unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since specific limb of Section 270A(9) leading to under-reporting of income or mis-reporting of income is not specified. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the penalty under Section 270A(9) for an excess claim of deduction under Section 54F, ruling it was a computation error, not misreporting. The Tribunal held that since the assessee had fully disclosed all facts and the error didn’t involve fraud or suppression, the penalty couldn’t be sustained under the specific clauses of misreporting.
ITAT Pune deleted the penalty of Rs.2.74 lakh imposed under Section 270A(9) for misreporting income related to delayed PF/ESIC payments. The Tribunal ruled that since the assessee’s claim was based on prevailing High Court judgments and the issue was debatable until the Supreme Court ruling, the mere disallowance of expenditure, where all particulars were disclosed, does not attract a misreporting penalty.
Relying on the Schneider Electric judgment of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that absence of a separate immunity order within one month does not justify penalty imposition.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted a ₹22.21 lakh penalty under Section 271AAB, ruling that the show-cause notice was defective for not specifying the charge. The Tribunal also held that mere stock valuation differences and an already offered cash investment do not qualify as “undisclosed income” under the section’s strict definition.
The ITAT followed its earlier ruling for the German financial institution, confirming that the management/processing fee was a component of the loan financing and not a fee for technical services. The decision directed the deletion of the entire addition, reinforcing that the taxability of fees must be determined based on their underlying nature and link to the principal loan.
The Tribunal ruled that the cross-charged fee for use of third-party software does not qualify as Royalty as the payment is for a copyrighted article and not the transfer of copyright rights. This decision deletes a significant addition, reaffirming that the make available clause in the DTAA was not satisfied.
