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 issue was whether foreign bank balances funded through LRS could be taxed as unexplained credits. ITAT held that once the source and opening balance are established, section 68 cannot be invoked merely on peak-credit theory.
Delhi ITAT held that a purchase-return mismatch does not constitute misreporting under section 270A(9). Immunity under section 270AA was granted, quashing the ₹10.69 lakh penalty.
The issue was whether the entire Section 80JJAA deduction could be rejected when some employees failed the 240-day condition. The Tribunal held that only ineligible employees’ costs can be disallowed, not the whole claim.
The issue was whether penalty for misreporting could be levied when income was disclosed but offered under an incorrect head. The Tribunal held that such a classification dispute does not amount to misreporting and deleted the penalty.
The issue was whether penalty could survive after the underlying assessment was quashed. The ITAT held that once the 153A assessment was annulled, the penalty under section 270A automatically fell.
The issue was whether satellite transmission fees constitute royalty in India. The Tribunal held that Article 12 of the DTAA governs and the receipts are not royalty. Domestic law amendments cannot override the treaty.
The High Court held that an assessment completed without granting a real opportunity to respond cannot stand. Ex parte reassessment and penalty orders were therefore set aside.
The issue was taxation of LLP partner’s remuneration without applying Sections 28(v) and 40(b). The High Court set aside the assessment for failure to consider the statutory scheme, remanding the matter for fresh decision.
The issue involved reassessment completed without a reply to the reopening notice. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity.
The High Court held that granting less than seven days to reply to a show-cause notice violates mandatory SOPs. Such a breach vitiates the entire faceless assessment process.
