Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
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 Income Tax Department explains how faceless assessments under Section 144B operate through the e-Filing portal without requiri...
Income Tax : The guide explains faceless assessments, appeals, penalties, rectification requests, and demand responses under the Income-tax Act...
Income Tax : Courts have held that non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 144B renders faceless assessment orders void. The rul...
Income Tax : In view of Indiscriminate notices by income Tax Department without allowing reasonable time it is requested to Finance Ministry an...
Income Tax : Lucknow CA Tax Practicioners Association has made a Representation to FM for Extension of Time Limit for Assessment cases time bar...
Income Tax : The Kerala High Court, today admitted a batch of Writ Petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Faceless Assessment...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and ear...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata condoned appeal delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the assessment for fresh adjudication after grantin...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed a Section 148 notice issued after the limitation under the first proviso to Section 149, holding the reassessm...
Income Tax : The High Court held that an assessment order passed without issuing a show cause notice detailing the proposed additions violated ...
Income Tax : CBDT issues guidelines for IT verification under Section 144B(5), detailing circumstances for digital and physical checks, effecti...
Income Tax : In pursuance of sub-section (3) of section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the fo...
Income Tax : Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Assessment Unit (AU), Verification Unit (VU), Technical Unit (TU) and Review Unit (RU) unde...
Income Tax : Roll out of first phase of changes in ITBA functionalities for Faceless Assessment due to amendments in Section 144B by Finance Ac...
Income Tax : National Faceless Penalty Centre, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Board, may,–– (a) in a case where imposit...
ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of excess tax paid.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and earlier acquisition of foreign investments.
ITAT Kolkata condoned appeal delay, set aside the CIT(A)’s order, and remanded the assessment for fresh adjudication after granting a fair hearing.
ITAT Mumbai quashed a Section 148 notice issued after the limitation under the first proviso to Section 149, holding the reassessment invalid for AY 2015-16.
The High Court held that an assessment order passed without issuing a show cause notice detailing the proposed additions violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh proceedings after issuing a proper notice.
The Bombay High Court held that failure to issue a mandatory show cause notice and draft assessment order under Section 144B rendered the faceless assessment non est. The assessment and demand notice were quashed with liberty for fresh proceedings.
Bombay High Court held that non-compliance with Section 144B raised a jurisdictional issue requiring ITAT adjudication and set aside its order.
ITAT Hyderabad deleted the Section 115BB addition after holding that the gaming platform’s records showed a net loss, not taxable winnings.
ITAT deleted the ₹75 lakh capital gains addition after holding the Revenue failed to produce conclusive evidence proving any property sale.
ITAT held that identical LTCL claims for co-owners of the same property cannot receive conflicting tax treatment and allowed the loss claim.
