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 ruling clarifies that penalty cannot be levied merely because expenses are partly disallowed on estimation. Absence of under-reporting or misreporting defeats the penalty action.
Setting aside the lower authorities orders, the Tribunal ruled that reliance on amalgamation-related precedents was misplaced. It reaffirmed that goodwill from a slump sale is depreciable when not hit by statutory restrictions.
The issue was denial of income-tax exemption to a statutory welfare board. The Court held that a subsequent government notification granting section 10(46) exemption resolved the dispute and nullified the pending tax demand and penalty.
The issue was whether income disclosed during survey and duly reported in the return can attract penalty under Section 270A. The Tribunal held that when returned income equals assessed income, penalty provisions do not apply.
The Tribunal condoned a 506-day delay after accepting that the appeal was filed only when heavy penalty exposure created prosecution risk. The key takeaway is that bona fide reliance on legal advice and later developments can constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be levied where the assessee voluntarily withdrew the education cess claim after a retrospective amendment. A bona fide claim made on prevailing judicial views does not amount to under-reporting or misreporting.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 270A cannot stand where income is enhanced purely by estimation. Additions made by applying a higher profit rate, without incriminating material, fall outside under-reporting.
It was ruled that deciding appeals based on facts of another year is a serious legal error. The matter was sent back for reconsideration on correct facts.
Where the extent of inflated purchases cannot be quantified and is restricted to a nominal percentage, penalty provisions do not apply. The ruling reinforces the distinction between estimated additions and proven concealment.
It was held that applying Sections 69/69A read with Section 115BBE without examining penalty under Section 271AAC justified revision. The PCIT’s direction to reframe the assessment was sustained.
