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...
TAT Nagpur set aside two penalties against Panhera Gramin Bigarsheti: one for non-compliance due to staff issues and another for an excess 80P deduction claim, citing a revised audit report.
ITAT Ranchi dismisses Revenue’s appeal against deletion of Section 270A penalty on Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., citing inadvertent error and no revenue impact due to MAT.
Addition made by AO in the hands of the trust was not justified as income from investments was taxable in the settlor’s hands and exempt under the India-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Madras High Court directs CBDT to hear taxpayer before deciding on a penalty notice, citing initial improper service and a four-month delay in communication.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that mere filing of return in response to notice u/s. 148 does not ipso facto justify the invocation of section 270A(2)(b), unless there is a demonstrable act of under-reporting in substance. Thus, penalty deleted as failure to furnish return u/s. 139(1) doesn’t constitute under-reporting.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty u/s. 270A(9)(a) of the Income Tax Act without mentioning the specific instance of misreporting in the notice or in order will vitiate the penalty order. Accordingly, penalty deleted and appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that taxability of service receipt amounts in terms of India- Thailand DTAA needs fresh consideration since relevant documents are not submitted. Accordingly, appellant is directed to submit all the details before DRP.
Pune ITAT deletes penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A for Sunil Chunilal Kumavat, citing non-specification of charges and reliance on Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh.
Jaipur ITAT deletes Section 270A penalty on Jaipur Telecom, ruling excess depreciation and TDS interest claims were bona fide errors, not misreporting.
Pune ITAT deletes Section 270A penalty on Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., ruling non-disclosure of adjusted IT refund interest was an inadvertent error, not under-reporting.
