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...
ITAT Mumbai grants relief to Central Bank of India, disallowing expenditure under Section 14A for securities held as stock-in-trade, citing the Maxopp Investment Ltd case.
ITAT Mumbai held that since the assessee has not earned any dividend income from its equity investment during the year disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is not sustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from background screening provided by the assessee to its customers in India cannot be regarded as Royalty or Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA and hence not taxable in India.
ITAT Delhi deleted TP adjustment on payment of model fee for export to AEs stating that scope of TPO is limited to determination of arm’s length price and TPO cannot adjudge commercial expediency of a transaction.
Assessee argued that since they were subject to audit under the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Act, their due date under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act was extended to October 31, 2018. Thus, they filed their ITR well within the time limit.
ITAT Raipur held penalty imposed u/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act clearly falls within the realm of orders appealable before the CIT(Appeals) u/s. 246A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Amritsar held that initiation of Assessment Proceedings u/s 153C, instead of section 153A, in case of the searched assessee makes the entire assessment invalid. Accordingly, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not maintainable.
ITAT Delhi held that as there is no copyright on live events, the license fees for live and non-live transmission right cannot be taxed as royaty in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Chennai rules in the case of Kannappan Vijayalakshmi vs ITO, stating that the mere non-acceptance of a claim by the assessee doesn’t mean automatic penalty under section 270A(9)(a). Explore the detailed analysis and implications.
ITAT Hyderabad held that law doesn’t permit delegation of authority by PCIT to Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Accordingly, direction issued by PCIT to AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is unlawful.
