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 ...
ITAT Cuttack confirmed a Section 270A penalty on Ganesh Chit Fund, rejecting immunity due to failure to file the prescribed Section 270AA application
TAT Nagpur set aside two penalties against Panhera Gramin Bigarsheti: one for non-compliance due to staff issues and another for an excess 80P deduction claim, citing a revised audit report.
ITAT Ranchi dismisses Revenue’s appeal against deletion of Section 270A penalty on Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., citing inadvertent error and no revenue impact due to MAT.
Addition made by AO in the hands of the trust was not justified as income from investments was taxable in the settlor’s hands and exempt under the India-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Madras High Court directs CBDT to hear taxpayer before deciding on a penalty notice, citing initial improper service and a four-month delay in communication.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that mere filing of return in response to notice u/s. 148 does not ipso facto justify the invocation of section 270A(2)(b), unless there is a demonstrable act of under-reporting in substance. Thus, penalty deleted as failure to furnish return u/s. 139(1) doesn’t constitute under-reporting.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty u/s. 270A(9)(a) of the Income Tax Act without mentioning the specific instance of misreporting in the notice or in order will vitiate the penalty order. Accordingly, penalty deleted and appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that taxability of service receipt amounts in terms of India- Thailand DTAA needs fresh consideration since relevant documents are not submitted. Accordingly, appellant is directed to submit all the details before DRP.
Pune ITAT deletes penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A for Sunil Chunilal Kumavat, citing non-specification of charges and reliance on Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh.
Jaipur ITAT deletes Section 270A penalty on Jaipur Telecom, ruling excess depreciation and TDS interest claims were bona fide errors, not misreporting.
