Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when errors are voluntarily corrected during assessment. ...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unsustainable as 54F exemption failed due to builder delay, not taxpayer’s fault. Full dis...
Income Tax : Understand why an income-tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the charge isn't specified as concealment or inaccurate...
Income Tax : Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and...
Income Tax : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...
Income Tax : The case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
Income Tax : Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) inter alia provides that w.e.f. 1 st April, 2017, the Assessing Officer, on an...
Discover the Delhi High Court’s ruling in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited regarding undisclosed income taxation and double taxation.
Delhi High Court sets aside Assessment and Penalty Orders due to AO’s oversight and insufficient response time, remanding matters for a fair hearing.
ITAT Mumbai held that rate of tax in case of foreign company is higher than rate of tax in case of domestic company and as per the Explanation in the Section 90, inserted in the IT Act with retrospective effect from 01-04-1962 the should not be regarded as violation of nondiscrimination clause.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that payment of guarantee fee to the Govt. of Gujarat in consideration of guarantee issued by it for repayment of unsecured loan is revenue expenditure.
An in-depth analysis of the ITAT Delhi’s order in the case Poonam C/o Sanjeev Anand vs ITO, focusing on the significance of the ruling that assessees should be given a chance to establish non-receipt of statutory notices.
Analysis of ITAT Chennai decision on V.S.J. Marketing Pvt. Vs DCIT. ITAT upholds penalty for failure to furnish Return of Income as concealment of income.
ITAT Kolkata held that TPO failed to demonstrate that royalty payment by assessee to Associated Enterprises (AEs) is embedded in the process of the imported goods. Accordingly, upward adjustment thereon unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore held that payments received towards interconnectivity utility charges from Indian customers / end users cannot be considered as Royalty to be brought to tax in India under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and also as per DTAA.
ITAT Kolkata held that disallowance of loss claimed by the assessee under section 41 of the Income Tax Act in a hypothetical way is unjustified and accordingly matter set aside for afresh examination.
ITAT Bangalore held that in case of non-resident, income arising in India by way of royalties or technical charges could be taxed in India but that could be only on the receipt basis under India-Switzerland DTAA and not on accrual basis.
