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 Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted inconsistently by condoning delay in the quantum appeal but refusing the same in penalty appeals. Since sufficient cause existed and was already recognized, delay in all penalty appeals was condoned. Penalty matters were restored to the AO for reconsideration.
The Court held that Section 270A cannot be invoked when assessed income matches the returned income, and an excessive FTC claim alone does not constitute under-reporting. Key takeaway: Penalty requires statutory pre-conditions to be satisfied, not mere disagreement on a claim.
The Tribunal ruled that interest could not be disallowed when ample interest-free funds existed and no link was shown between overdraft borrowings and partners’ drawings. The key takeaway is that presumption of utilisation of own funds applies when mixed funds are available.
The ITAT held that the AO could not deny TDR cost in both AY 2018–19 and AY 2020–21, directing allowance of the deduction. Authorities cannot blow hot and cold on the same issue across years.
The Tribunal directed fresh examination of whether the government allocation received by the assessee constituted a corpus fund under section 11(1)(d). It held that the lower authorities had not properly considered the assessee’s submissions, requiring the matter to be verified afresh.
The ITAT Pune held that splitting royalties for domestic vs export sales was impermissible, deleting the entire transfer pricing adjustment. The ruling reinforces that TNMM aggregation for manufacturing includes royalties as a single element.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
The ITAT held that excise-duty exemption for backward-area units is capital in nature since the incentive aims at industrial growth, not business profits. The ruling protects such incentives from tax under normal and AMT provisions.
Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot survive once the Section 14A addition is deleted, especially where no exempt income was earned. The ruling reiterates that prospective amendments cannot justify retrospective disallowances.
The Tribunal ruled that Explanation 5A applies only when the assessee is found possessing undisclosed tangible assets, which was not established. Since no such assets were discovered and the additions came from routine assessments, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. This clarifies that the deeming fiction under Explanation 5A is not automatic.
