Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Highlights - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Income Tax
  • Direct Taxes
  • Benami Property
  • Central GST Laws
  • SGST - State GST Laws
  • Customs
  • FTP - Foreign Trade Policy
  • SEZ - Special Economic Zone
  • FEMA - Foreign Exchange Management
  • Companies Law
  • SEBI - Securities & Exchange Board of India
  • IBC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA - Money-Laundering
  • Indian Laws
  • Bill / Finance Bills
  • Wealth Tax
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Month:
---- All Months ----
  • ---- All Months ----
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
Year:
---- All Years ----
  • ---- All Years ----
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    HUF property taxation: individual ownership evidence excluded stamp-duty value difference from taxation under the deemed receipt provision.
    Binding interim judicial directions protected employers from withholding default on foreign-leg leave travel concession payments despite later clarifi...
    Rectification jurisdiction excludes debatable income computation, leaving capital receipt and expenditure treatment for appellate determination.
    Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
    Jurisdictional notice requirement invalidates scrutiny assessments when the assessing officer completing assessment issued no statutory notice.
    Reasonable cause for emergency cash loans protected genuine acceptance and repayment transactions from statutory penalties.
    Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
    Credible material of corruption is required for an independent investigation; clearance delays and valuation disputes alone are insufficient.
    Baggage import jurisdiction remains outside Tribunal appeals, directing confiscation and penalty disputes to the statutory revisional remedy.
    Glow Plug Control Units classified as engine starting equipment; extended demand and penalty fail without suppression or evasion intent.
    IGST import refund limitation commenced only after a prescribed mechanism existed, making United Nations agency claims timely.
    Customs supervision charges cannot shift to cost recovery without an actual exclusive officer posting beyond regular staffing.
    Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
    Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
    Foreign judgment presumption supports asset disclosure, while appellate review preserves reasonably exercised interlocutory discretion and maintains r...
    Reasoned fraud classification requires disclosed application of mind, while adequate prior opportunity satisfies natural justice requirements.
    Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
    Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
    Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
    Original works valuation applies to showroom fit-outs, while forfeited purchase advances and fire-loss reimbursements are not taxable services.
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Highlights
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries

    Highlights

    Back

    All Highlights

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      Highlights

      Back

      All Highlights

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Penalty imposed u/s 270A(9) for underreporting and misreporting...

      Tribunal Overturns 200% Penalty for Income Misreporting Due to Vague Notice Lacking Clear Charge Specification.

      Contents
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Income TaxNovember 18, 2024Case LawsAT
      Penalty imposed u/s 270A(9) for underreporting and misreporting of income was challenged due to non-specification of clear charge. The Tribunal held that underreporting and misreporting have different connotations and consequences. In the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 270A, no specific charge or limb was specified. The Tribunal observed that the Delhi High Court in Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) had dealt with a case where the ingredients of sub-section 9 of Section 270A were not specified while imposing the penalty, ultimately affirming the deletion of the penalty. In the present case, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A without mentioning any sub-clause or specifying the limb for levying the proposed penalty. The notice was vague and did not mention "misreporting of income," whereas the penalty was ultimately levied for both underreporting and misreporting at 200% u/s 270A(9), for which no show cause notice was issued. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax