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 ...
Bombay High Court held that as per clause (xiii) of section 144B(1), reply can be filed by the assessee on the date and time as specified or within the extended time. Accordingly, shutting down the window before completion of extended time limit is unjustified. Hence, assessment order liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of intra group services at Rs. Nil is not justified as the assessee has maintained a reasonably sound documentation of intra group services.
Analyzing ITAT Chennai’s decision in the S. Saroja Vs DCIT case, focusing on the ruling that no penalty should be levied for inadvertent mistakes in reporting house property value by an accountant.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of revenue expenditure treating it as capital merely on the basis of description of the expenditure without any substantive record is unsustainable.
Read about dismissal of an appeal by ITAT Mumbai in case of BLPL Singapore Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT. Sssessee’s appeal against penalty order under Section 270A for non-disclosure of interest income was dismissed.
ITAT Delhi in Jubilant Securities Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT case, highlighted the rule that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income
ITAT directs re-adjudication of penalty imposed under section 270A of the IT Act for misreporting of income without the application of mind.
ITAT Delhi held that in absence of a Permanent Establishment, provisions of section 44BB of the Income Tax Act has no application.
Addition made on the basis of estimation cannot provide foundation for under-reported income for the purpose of imposition of penalty u/s 270A
ITAT Delhi held that payment received in the nature of Business Profit cannot be brought to tax in India in absence of Permanent Establishment in India.
