Income Tax : Learn about penalty provisions under the IT Act, including penalties for defaults in tax payment, income reporting, and more. Key ...
Finance : Learn about Section 270A introduced in Finance Act 2016, effective from April 1, 2017, outlining penalties for under-reporting and...
Income Tax : Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculati...
CA, CS, CMA : Discover the complexities of tax compliance for freelancers and gig workers, from understanding income sources to navigating legal...
Income Tax : Learn how to avoid penalties under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act through understanding its provisions and utilizing Section 2...
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 Chennai rules that debatable tax claims made in good faith do not warrant penalties under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act....
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that that mens rea is not an essential condition for imposing penalties under civil acts. Penalty u/s. 270A of...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that resorting to estimation of profit in case of best judgement assessment without rejection of books of acco...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court quashes penalty on VRML Constructions Pvt Ltd, citing technical glitches in ITBA records. Fresh proceedings may ...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur rules assessment valid despite no penalty initiation in Mikuni India case. Tribunal cites precedents, highlights separ...
Hire charges of a vessel did not constitute ‘Royalty’ as it was in the nature of business income and as there was no Permanent Establishment therefore, no taxability arose on account of business income.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Employee Stock Option Plans [ESOP] expenses should not be regarded contingent or notional and it should be allowed as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that notice u/s 274 r.w.s.270A of the Act was not a valid notice for the reason that the AO did not specify the satisfaction as to whether assessee had either ‘under reported the income or ‘misreported the income’.
Assessee is a credit cooperative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members for A.Y. 2014 – 15, filed its return of income after claiming deduction u/s. 80 P (2) (a) of the income tax act.
Delhi High Court held that order issued u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act wrongly challenged on the assumption that it is draft assessment order u/s. 144C is untenable in law. Accordingly, cost of ₹1,00,000/- imposed on petitioner.
Manish Manohardas Asrani Vs ITO Int Tax Ward (ITAT Mumbai) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, ruled in favor of the assessee, Manish Manohardas Asrani, quashing a penalty of ₹44,90,048 levied under Section 270A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that the penalty notice lacked specificity regarding the charge—whether it pertained […]
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that revision u/s. 263 quashed as AO already disallowed the claim of depreciation while framing assessment and assessed income at NIL due to proper application of funds.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked as AO exercised a plausible and legally valid view and revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because PCIT holds a different view.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee is not required to prove that a particular debt had become bad debt in order to claim deduction on account of bad debt written off pursuant to the amendment made u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act after 01.04.1989.
Held that the cash deposits are made out of the sale proceeds of the assessee and in my opinion the assessee has properly explained the source of the cash deposits along with documentary evidence.
