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 Karnataka High Court struck down the Section 148 reassessment notice for being issued outside the jurisdiction/scope defined by Section 151-A. This decision invalidates the subsequent assessment, penalty, and demand, pending a final verdict from the Supreme Court on the core legal issue.
The ITAT Dehradun set aside a penalty under Section 270A, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact clause of misreporting invoked. The penalty was declared invalid and deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that the lease rentals received by Irish residents were exempt from tax in India under Article 8 of the treaty, following precedent on operating leases. The ruling affirms that the DTAA explicitly covers the rental of aircraft (including helicopters) in international traffic.
ITAT Delhi ruled that a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Mauritius is sufficient proof of residency to claim benefits under the India-Mauritius DTAA. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s attempt to deny treaty protection based on vague allegations of the assessee being a paper/shell company.
Since Netflix India functioned solely as a limited-risk distributor of access, not as a licensee of content or technology, therfore, TNMM benchmarking was accepted, and the royalty-based TP adjustment of ₹444.93 crores was unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since specific limb of Section 270A(9) leading to under-reporting of income or mis-reporting of income is not specified. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the penalty under Section 270A(9) for an excess claim of deduction under Section 54F, ruling it was a computation error, not misreporting. The Tribunal held that since the assessee had fully disclosed all facts and the error didn’t involve fraud or suppression, the penalty couldn’t be sustained under the specific clauses of misreporting.
ITAT Pune deleted the penalty of Rs.2.74 lakh imposed under Section 270A(9) for misreporting income related to delayed PF/ESIC payments. The Tribunal ruled that since the assessee’s claim was based on prevailing High Court judgments and the issue was debatable until the Supreme Court ruling, the mere disallowance of expenditure, where all particulars were disclosed, does not attract a misreporting penalty.
Relying on the Schneider Electric judgment of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that absence of a separate immunity order within one month does not justify penalty imposition.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted a ₹22.21 lakh penalty under Section 271AAB, ruling that the show-cause notice was defective for not specifying the charge. The Tribunal also held that mere stock valuation differences and an already offered cash investment do not qualify as “undisclosed income” under the section’s strict definition.
