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 Delhi ruled that reimbursement of software costs to foreign AEs on a cost-to-cost basis could not be treated as a profit-generating intra-group service. The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment after finding the benchmarking method adopted by the TPO unjustified.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings issued beyond three years for AY 2018-19 were invalid because approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority under Section 151(ii).
Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had wrongly recharacterised Boeing India Defense Private Limited as a full-risk service provider despite the Associated Enterprise (AE) assuming the entire contractual and operational risks relating to defence support services rendered to the Indian Air Force (IAF).
The Tribunal upheld disallowance of deduction under Section 80GGC after finding the political donation lacked genuineness. The ruling highlights that payments through banking channels alone cannot establish a valid deduction when surrounding facts indicate accommodation entries.
The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles of natural justice. Penalty proceedings were therefore held invalid and unsustainable.
Delhi ITAT directed exclusion of a comparable company engaged in video conferencing solutions after noting that the DRP had already found it functionally incomparable to the assessee’s software distribution business.
The Bangalore ITAT held that an assessee claiming exemption based on Form 16 issued by the employer acted under a bona fide belief and cannot automatically be penalized for misreporting. The Tribunal deleted the ₹51.20 lakh penalty levied under Section 270A.
ITAT Bangalore held that NIL taxable income disclosed by an Alternative Investment Fund does not automatically negate its creditworthiness. The Tribunal recognized the statutory pass-through taxation mechanism applicable to AIF structures.
Pune ITAT held that penalty for under-reporting of income cannot survive where the Assessing Officer accepts the income declared in response to notice under Section 148 without any addition. The Tribunal deleted the entire penalty under Section 270A.
ITAT Kolkata held that entire bogus purchases must be added under Section 69C where the supplier was proved to be a paper entity and no evidence of actual delivery of goods existed. The ruling reiterates that bank payments and invoices alone cannot establish genuineness.
