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 appellate authority failed to pass a reasoned order under Section 250(6) and remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing that proper opportunity be given to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the authorities mechanically endorsed a factually incorrect premise, resulting in an unjustified DVO reference. Such a negligible 1.71% variation could not support an unexplained-investment addition under Section 69. Due to non-application of mind throughout the process, the 153A assessment was struck down entirely.
ITAT Delhi deletes ₹16.97 Cr addition; Denmark-based LM Wind Power AS has no PE or business connection in India. Royalty taxable u/s 115A; penalty u/s 271AA unsustainable.
ITAT held that most jewellery seized during a search could be accounted for from declared drawings and past income, reducing addition to ₹72.45 lakh. Ruling emphasizes that unexplained investment must be proven in relevant assessment year.
ITAT held that managing multiple bank accounts justified salary expenses claimed under Section 57(iii). The ruling restores full deduction and reinforces that recurring administrative costs can be allowable against interest income.
The ITAT found the AO’s valuation incorrect, emphasizing that FMV must be determined on the date of transfer, leading to the restoration of the long-term capital loss for the Assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the ex-parte CIT(A) order confirming ₹36.3 lakh addition for advance rent. The matter was restored to AO for de-novo adjudication, and the assessee was granted full opportunity to present evidence, with a ₹5,000 cost imposed.
The Tribunal found no evidence of concealment since the assessee had transparently disclosed impairment, CENVAT credit treatment, and revenue recognition. It ruled that Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked merely because the AO made additions.
Tribunal remands the matter after finding that bank records showing cash withdrawals were not examined. The key takeaway is that cash-in-hand cant be treated as unexplained without proper factual verification.
The ITAT Delhi partly allowed the appeal as the AO/TPO selected a company that failed the turnover filter for transfer pricing. Key takeaway: Transfer pricing adjustments must follow proper comparability filters and FAR analysis.
