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 ...
Assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal as he was old and not well acquainted and conversant with the digital system in order to follow up with the income tax notices, which were posted in IT portal. Accordingly, the delay in filing appeal was condoned.
Chambal Fertilizers triumphs in legal battle vs. PCIT (Rajasthan High Court). Court quashes penalty, emphasizing Section 270AA immunity. Details of the landmark case.
Karnataka High Court held that scrutiny notice issued u/s 143(2) by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre instead of jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Central Charge is sustainable in law and hence valid.
Rajasthan High Court held that imposition of penalty u/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as application filed u/s. 270AA for immunity of penalty not decided by AO within prescribed time limit.
The impugned notices and orders were issued by the respondents/revenue admittedly subsequent to the public announcement under Section 15 of the Code regarding CIRP process pertaining to assessee and it was only subsequent to approval of the Resolution Plan of the Tribunal that Revenue issued the impugned Assessment Order and Demand Notice.
Explore the Kerala High Court’s judgment on IBS Software’s plea for immunity under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act. Detailed analysis of the rejection and legal implications.
ITAT Jaipur held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the ground and default on the part of the assessee and also without specifying the undisclosed income on which penalty was proposed to be levied is unsustainable-in-law.
Read the full text of Kerala High Court judgment quashing penalty proceedings under Income Tax Act for under-reporting of income. No hearing date fixed after show cause notice.
In the case of D.C. Polyester Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), penalty under section 270A was contested for changing income head. Detailed analysis and outcome explained.
The ITAT Kolkata has deleted the penalty in Prem Kumar Goutam vs. DCIT, ruling that the AO cannot demand a Profit and Loss Account for Section 44AD income. Get the details.
