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 ...
Delay of 208 days condoned on bona fide grounds with ₹1,000 cost; ITAT sets aside ex-parte CIT(A) order, holding denial of hearing violates natural justice, and remands matter to AO for fresh adjudication with full opportunity.
The Tribunal held that absence of a clear charge in the penalty notice makes the proceedings invalid. It ruled that failure to specify the exact limb of misreporting renders the penalty unsustainable.
The issue involved dismissal of appeal due to delay and non-appearance. The tribunal condoned the delay citing medical reasons and remanded the matter for fresh assessment, imposing cost for non-compliance.
The issue was denial of capital gains exemption due to claim under wrong section. The tribunal held that a genuine claim cannot be rejected merely for citing an incorrect provision and remanded the case.
The issue was whether penalty for misreporting can be imposed without specifying the applicable clause. The tribunal held such penalty invalid and ordered its deletion.
Court held that penalty under Section 270A cannot apply where assessed income does not exceed processed income. Key takeaway: statutory conditions must be strictly met.
ITAT Delhi held that companies owning and operating channels cannot be compared with distribution company for the purpose of transfer pricing. Accordingly, directs TPO to exclude such comparables for benchmarking distribution segment and determination of ALP.
ITAT Mumbai held that payments made to third-party vendors on a cost-to-cost basis, without any value addition by the assessee, should be treated as pass-through costs and excluded from PLI computation.
The Tribunal held that trading and service activities were inextricably linked and could not be segmented. It accepted entity-level TNMM, rendering TP adjustments unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing the return due to pending probate proceedings was beyond the control of executors. It ruled that such delay constituted a bona fide explanation, leading to deletion of penalty under Section 270A.
