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 Delhi ITAT ruled that no installation or supervisory PE existed in India as the activities did not exceed the 120-day threshold under the India-Canada DTAA. Consequently, income attribution to the alleged PE was held to be unsustainable.
The Delhi ITAT held that Fees for Technical Services cannot be taxed under Article 22 of the India-Thailand DTAA merely because the treaty lacks a specific FTS clause. In the absence of a Permanent Establishment in India, such business income was held not taxable.
The Court held that the assessee failed to produce any written or registered document proving transfer of property to the firm. Consequently, the challenge to the assessment proceedings was rejected, leaving the assessee to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
Delhi ITAT held that share premium received by a subsidiary from its holding company could not be taxed under Section 56(2)(viib). The ruling emphasizes that the anti-abuse provision cannot be extended to genuine intra-group capital infusions.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the transfer pricing adjustment on management fees after finding that identical issues in the assessee’s own earlier years had already been decided in its favour. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency.
The ITAT held that transfer pricing adjustment was not justified where the foreign LLC’s income was already offered to tax in India by the assessee. The Tribunal deleted the TP addition, finding no profit shifting or tax erosion.
The ITAT Kolkata set aside the appellate order on penalty under Section 270A and remanded the matter to the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the penalty issue should be reconsidered along with the pending quantum appeal.
The ITAT held that penalty for misreporting of income cannot be levied when the underlying addition is based merely on estimation of profit. Estimated additions do not establish deliberate concealment or misreporting.
The Revenue sought to levy penalty despite accepting the revised income declared by the assessee. ITAT held that accepted disclosures do not automatically amount to misreporting and cannot justify penalty under Section 270A.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period could not be fully treated as unexplained money when supported by sales records and books of account. However, as the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the abnormal increase in cash sales before demonetization, the Tribunal sustained only a lump-sum addition of ₹10 lakh. The ruling emphasizes balanced evaluation of evidence in demonetization-related assessments.
