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 ...
The ITAT held that a penalty notice without specifying whether the case involved under-reporting or misreporting of income is legally unsustainable. The Tribunal ruled that such defective notices are void-ab-initio and cannot support penalty proceedings.
Mumbai ITAT held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made where expenditure remains part of work-in-progress and is not claimed in the profit and loss account. The Tribunal upheld adjustment of WIP instead of direct addition to income.
The Tribunal ruled that under-reported income must be calculated as the difference between assessed income and income processed under Section 143(1)(a). Penalty computation was sent back for recomputation due to incorrect methodology adopted by the AO.
Mumbai ITAT held that the 10% tolerance band introduced under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) is curative and retrospective in nature. The Tribunal deleted addition arising from stamp duty valuation difference as the variation was only 7.44%.
The ITAT observed that mere remote access to customer-owned systems does not satisfy the disposal and permanence tests required for constituting a Fixed Place PE under the India-Canada DTAA.
The Delhi ITAT held that penalty proceedings under Section 270A are invalid when the Assessing Officer does not identify the precise statutory clause for under-reporting or misreporting of income. The Tribunal ruled that such omission goes to the root of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that the use of the word may in Section 271AAC gives discretionary power to the Assessing Officer and does not mandate automatic penalty levy. It emphasized that such discretion must be exercised judiciously.
The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80GGC does not automatically amount to misreporting of income. It deleted the penalty as there was no evidence of false particulars or fabricated documents.
The Tribunal held that once the income disclosed in the return filed under Section 148 was accepted without any addition, there could be no allegation of under-reporting or misreporting. The entire penalty of ₹4.91 lakh was deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that no unexplained investment addition could survive where the booked property deal was cancelled and funds were refunded. The ruling emphasized verification of actual payment flow and subsequent cancellation events.
