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 : ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 270A as quantum addition was fully removed. Held that no under-reporting exists when ass...
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 ...
ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains earned from the transactions, which are grandfathered as per the provisions of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, doesn’t form part of total income hence cannot be adjusted against the brought forward long-term capital loss incurred by the assessee. Accordingly, order set aside.
The Tribunal emphasized that exempt income disclosed in the return cannot be taxed due to a technical reporting mistake. Substance of disclosure prevails over form where facts are undisputed.
The issue was whether an appeal involving large additions could be dismissed solely for delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that technical dismissal was improper and ordered remand with costs. Key takeaway: meritorious matters should be decided on merits, not limitation alone.
The issue was whether rejection of books and enhancement of gross profit were justified due to alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal upheld partial relief, holding that GP estimation must be reasonable and supported by facts, not solely by procedural lapses.
The Tribunal set aside the confirmed penalty where non-filing of return was attributed to medical reasons. The case was remanded for fresh examination of reasonable cause before sustaining penalty under Section 270A.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), subject to verification of amounts.
The Tribunal held that merely reclassifying a disclosed business loss as speculative loss does not amount to under-reporting. Penalty under section 270A was therefore deleted.
The Revenue argued AMP functions required separate compensation under DEMPE principles. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that consistent past rulings prevail absent material factual change.
Proposed adjustments against stayed demands were held impermissible. The Court ruled that such actions cannot defeat the assessee’s right to timely refund with interest.
The assessing authority made a large addition without explaining its nature or legal basis. The Tribunal ruled that such a cryptic order cannot stand and set aside the addition.
