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 ...
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.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on account of attributing income from offshore supplies to permanent establishment in India unjustified in case of loss.
Explore the consequences of making incorrect income tax refund claims and the associated legal ramifications. Understand the penalties, fines, and potential imprisonment involved. Learn about Section 139(8A) for rectifying mistakes and ensuring compliance. Stay informed to maintain financial integrity.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from disaster recovery playout services and disaster recovery up-linking services are not in the nature of Fee for Technical Service (FTS) as envisaged under Article 12(4)(a) of India-Singapore DTAA.
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act duly leviable in absence of any plausible legal explanation with regard to misreporting of taxable income and increasing deductions.
ITAT Mumbai held that where assessee company was amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence, assessment order passed subsequently in name of said non-existing entity, would be without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that TPO rightly treated interest receivables as a loan outstanding given by assessee to its Associated Enterprises (AE) and charging interest on the same.
ITAT Pune held that imposition of penalty under section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb within which the penalty is imposed is unsustainable. Failure of AO to quote any of the six sub-limbs as prescribed u/s 270A(9) makes imposition of penalty unsustainable
ITAT Mumbai held that the bank guarantee rates cannot be considered for benchmarking corporate guarantee fees, therefore benchmarking of AO and DRP is also incorrect. It depends on creditworthiness of parties and benefit arising out of the same in the hands of the parties to the transaction.
Explore our in-depth analysis of the recent ITAT Bangalore ruling on Veereshayya Angadi Vs ITO case, focusing on the issue of penalty for excessive refund claims influenced by a tax consultant.
