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...
The Court held that adjusting refunds beyond 20% of a disputed penalty during a pending appeal violates CBDT instructions and ordered refund of the excess amount.
Reopenings based on assumptions, conjecture, or generalized allegations were struck down. The ruling reiterates that reasons must show tangible material, application of mind, and a live nexus with escaped income.
The decision clarifies that voluntary admission and taxation of income post-search does not ipso facto warrant penalty. Absence of contumacious conduct weighed against the Revenue.
The tribunal examined whether a Singapore entity could claim DTAA exemption on capital gains from sale of Indian shares. It held that treaty benefits were unavailable as the entity lacked commercial substance and functioned as a shell or conduit.
The law now proposes a single consolidated assessment-cum-penalty order for under-reporting of income, reducing multiple proceedings and long-drawn uncertainty for taxpayers.
The Tribunal ruled that withdrawing a deduction in response to a Section 148 notice does not erase underreporting. Penalty for misrepresentation under Section 270A was upheld.
The Tribunal considered whether a penalty can stand independently while the core addition is pending fresh adjudication. It ruled that penalty cannot precede final determination of income and must be deleted at this stage.
The addition on shares contributed to a family trust was deleted as the trust was exclusively for the benefit of relatives. Section 56(2)(x) does not apply where the statutory exemption conditions are satisfied.
The ITAT held that an assessment made in the name of an amalgamated company is void ab initio, even where proceedings continued after merger intimation.
The Tribunal held that when an eligible assessee fails to file objections before the DRP within time, a direct appeal to the Tribunal is barred. Non-compliance with section 144C renders the appeal non-maintainable.
