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 shifting a disclosed loss from business to speculation does not amount to under-reporting when the quantum of loss is fully accepted. Since the tax liability remained Nil and no suppression was alleged, section 270A could not be invoked. The penalty was therefore deleted in full.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied without specifying whether the case involved under-reporting or misreporting of income. The AO issued a 200% penalty without identifying the statutory limb or giving reasons. Since the order lacked satisfaction and reasoning, the penalty was quashed.
ITAT Delhi applied the principle that if the foundation (quantum addition) is removed, the superstructure (penalty) collapses. The Section 270A penalty was deleted once the quantum was wiped out. Takeaway: penalties require surviving taxable additions.
The Tribunal held that a captive software development service provider cannot be compared with giant IT companies owning IP, diversified services, and global operations. By excluding these functionally dissimilar comparables, the entire ₹10.58 crore TP adjustment was deleted.
ITAT emphasized that taxpayers must substantiate the receipt and benefit of group services, remanding the matter due to inadequate examination by lower authorities.
The Tribunal applied long-standing rulings invalidating the intensity and BLT approaches for AMP benchmarking, deleting both substantive and protective adjustments. The decision underscores that such methods lack statutory support.
ITAT restored penalties under Sections 271AAC and 270A after noting CIT(A) dismissed appeal without hearing assessee. Case highlights necessity of providing a fair opportunity before imposing penalties.
ITAT Kolkata held that an addition cannot be sustained solely on a survey statement under Section 133A. Proper verification of stock and business records is required before treating income as undisclosed.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that once the Assessing Officer is aware of a merger, assessment in the name of the amalgamating company is invalid and without jurisdiction.
Delhi High Court held that tax authorities cannot replace projected business valuations with actual results when assessing transfer pricing, emphasizing commercial prudence principle in asset transfers.
