Income Tax : Budget 2026 proposes allowing taxpayers to file an updated return even after receiving a reassessment notice under Section 148. Wh...
Income Tax : Misreporting under Section 270A(9) applies only to six specific circumstances. Where the assessment order does not clearly establi...
Income Tax : The law now proposes a single consolidated assessment-cum-penalty order for under-reporting of income, reducing multiple proceedin...
Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Income Tax : Section 270A penalties must specify the exact misreporting clause. Vague notices invalidate penalties and can restore immunity und...
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 : The tribunal examined whether duty drawback should be taxed on accrual or actual receipt. It held that as per law, duty drawback i...
Income Tax : ITAT held that interest earned on bank deposits is taxable and not covered by the principle of mutuality. The ruling confirms that...
Income Tax : The Tribunal restored the penalty matter as the quantum addition was sent back to the AO. It held that penalty must follow the out...
Income Tax : The issue was penalty for misreporting on sale of land classified as capital asset. The Tribunal held the issue was debatable and ...
Income Tax : The case examined whether disallowance under section 94(7) should be limited to exempt dividend. The Tribunal held that the provis...
The Tribunal held that immunity from penalty requires strict compliance with statutory conditions, and absence of proof of Form 68 filing disentitles relief.
Orissa High Court held that post search operation all pending assessments/reassessments doesn’t not automatically get abated as provisions of section 158BA(2) of the Income Tax Act. Matter must specifically fall within Block Assessment Scheme for abatement. However, writ dismissed as power under Article 226 not invoked.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹13.32 lakh penalty u/s 270A, holding bona fide exemption claim by charitable trust not misreporting; 200% penalty unsustainable.
The ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under Section 270A for alleged underreporting and misreporting of income could not survive once the Karnataka High Court condoned the delay in filing the return and restored the assessee’s eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA.
ITAT Mumbai held that the provision for leave encashment made on actuarial basis constitutes an ascertained liability and is allowable as deduction. Accordingly, the said ground is allowed.
The addition under Section 68 was deleted as capital introduced by partners is not a loan or unexplained credit of the firm. Enquiry into partners creditworthiness must be conducted separately in their cases.
The Tribunal observed that merely using the term misreporting without linking it to any specific statutory limb is insufficient. It quashed the penalty, reiterating that penal proceedings must be precise and legally justified.
The Tribunal upheld 200% penalty under Section 270A for misreporting income through ineligible deductions. Admitted incorrect claims were treated as conscious misrepresentation, not a bonafide error.
The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory option under Rule 11UA(2) lies exclusively with the assessee. Replacing DCF with NAV without demonstrating fatal flaws in valuation violates the legal framework.
The ruling highlights that mere failure to file return, without concealment or tax evasion, does not automatically attract Section 270A penalty. Bona fide explanation and TDS compliance protected the taxpayer.
