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 ...
Tribunal confirms that co-operative societies’ operational expenditures have business nexus with interest income; Section 57 deduction of Rs.62.57 lakh allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot suffer due to the AO’s inaction under section 270AA(4), directing grant of immunity and cancelling the 270A penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s delayed filing was bona fide due to disputes and legal ambiguities, and the declared income was fully accepted. No penalty under Section 270A was warranted.
The Tribunal emphasized that an error regarding VRS exemption made by a salaried, non-technical taxpayer cannot be classified as deliberate under-reporting. With no false claim or suppression, the 270A penalty was deleted.
Since the 14A disallowance was already struck down on the ground that no exempt income was earned, the Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A had no legal basis. It ruled that penalty cannot survive once the underlying quantum addition ceases to exist. The key takeaway is that penalty collapses automatically when its foundation is eliminated.
The Tribunal ruled that a cess deduction claim based on favourable jurisprudence cannot trigger penalty. Compliance with Section 155(18), including timely Form 69 filing, protected the assessee from under-reporting allegations.
Additions for alleged on-money payments were disallowed because the evidence relied on by authorities contained errors and lacked authenticity. The decision highlights the need for corroborated, primary evidence in tax proceedings.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer after the faceless regime came into force were without authority. All related proceedings were quashed, and the ITAT appeal was directed to be closed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A could not stand because the JPACK ledger titled “SABARI” was not proven to belong to the assessee. The ruling emphasises lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in the seized material.
The ITAT remitted the issue to the CIT(A), noting that exemption provisions were wrongly applied to a non-qualifying investor. The takeaway is that exemption claims in share premium cases must match statutory definitions and evidence.
