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 ITAT deleted the entire Rs.3.94 crore Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment, ruling that three companies involved in product development, distribution, and proprietary software (Kellton, Magnasoft, Interglobe) were functionally dissimilar to a captive software service provider.2 The Tribunal held that excluding these companies brought the assessees margin of within the Arms Length Price (ALP) range.
The Tribunal held that a ₹15.22 crore one-time payment to distributors, necessitated by a business model shift, was a valid revenue expenditure under Section 37, driven by commercial necessity. The ruling affirms that business prudence justifies compensation to maintain continuity without creating a capital asset.
The ITAT deleted penalties under both Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A, ruling that merely making a bona fide but ultimately unsustainable tax claim under the India-UK DTAA does not attract a penalty. The Tribunal held that a difference in legal interpretation, especially in complex international tax issues, does not constitute concealment or misreporting of income.
Upholding the CIT(A)’s decision, the ITAT confirmed that the charitable trusts claim for exemption on ₹2.45 crore application of income could not be denied. The ruling establishes that the registration granted under Section 12AA, even if initially delayed, holds legal force for the current assessment year, nullifying the AOs attempt to tax voluntary contributions.
The ITAT Hyderabad quashed a penalty order imposed under Section 270A, ruling it was barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) because the order was passed in December 2021, six months after the statutory deadline of June 30, 2021. The Tribunal held that since the penalty was initiated in December 2020, the outer limit for passing the order had clearly expired.
The ITAT Ahmedabad, applying the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal ruling and Gujarat High Court’s precedent, invalidated a reassessment for AY 2017-18. The order u/s 148A(d) and fresh u/s 148 notice, stemming from a deemed notice issued on 30.06.2021, were held time-barred as they were issued 20 days beyond the maximum seven-day ‘surviving time’ limit.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that the date of a Letter of Intent (LOI), 14.02.2011, constitutes the date of acquisition for a flat, allowing indexation from that date for Long-Term Capital Gains computation.
Ahmedabad ITAT set aside a ₹13.86 lakh penalty u/s 270A after the quantum appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, citing the consequential nature of penalty.
Delhi ITAT ruled that Pratt & Whitney’s overseas aircraft engine repair is not Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as it fails the DTAA’s “make-available” test. The ₹242 Cr demand was deleted.
ITAT, Pune, ruled in Manisha Dhananjay Holkar vs. ITO that CIT (Appeals) [CIT(A)] cannot dismiss an appeal solely due to appellant’s non-appearance.
