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 ...
Pune ITAT deletes Section 270A penalty on Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., ruling non-disclosure of adjusted IT refund interest was an inadvertent error, not under-reporting.
When sales were not doubted, entire purchases could not be disallowed merely on the ground that suppliers were non-genuine, it was deemed appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of AO for carrying out limited verification and addition should be restricted to profit estimation.
Assessee is a foreign company and a tax resident of Mauritius. The assessee is carrying on investment activity in India by way of investments in shares and debentures of Indian companies through recognized stock exchanges in India.
ITAT Lucknow quashes Rs. 3.34 Lakh penalty on Mohd Husain, citing lack of fair opportunity by tax authorities and improper notice delivery. Case sent for re-adjudication.
Bombay High Court sets aside Sulzer Pumps’ assessment order, citing pending DRP reference and procedural requirements under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that short-term capital loss [STCL] on which STT is paid [which is taxable at 15% u/s. 111A of the Income Tax Act] can be set off against short-term capital gains [STCG] on which STT is not paid [which is taxable at 30% u/s. 115AD].
ITAT Delhi held that Bright Line Test doesn’t have statutory mandate and cannot be applied for determining Arm’s Length Price [ALP] of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion [AMP] expense. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
Delhi High Court held that notice sent to email address available at website of MCA is proper service of notice. Thus, order passed doesn’t violate principles of natural justice. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Bombay High Court slaps ₹10,000 cost on Zarah Rafique Malik for failing to inform the tax officer about pending DRP objections, setting aside the assessment order for re-consideration.
ITAT Delhi rules in Sudarsan De case, setting aside S.270A penalty for under-reporting as belated return was accepted without income additions.
