Income Tax : Courts have held that non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 144B renders faceless assessment orders void. The rul...
Income Tax : Budget 2026 introduces sweeping retrospective amendments affecting limitation, reassessment jurisdiction, DIN validity, and TPO ti...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that an assessment completed before receiving the DVO report under section 50C(2) is invalid. All additions and disa...
Income Tax : Overview of the Faceless Scheme for Income Tax: electronic assessments, appeals, penalties, and rectifications with no physical in...
Income Tax : Faceless Income-tax proceedings and e-assessments under Section 144B simplify taxpayer compliance. Use the e-filing portal for ele...
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 Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to a...
Income Tax : The Hyderabad ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier failed to respond to a notice under ...
Income Tax : Tribunal noted the assessee’s contention that only his share in jointly owned properties could be taxed instead of the entire tr...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that deduction for bad debts is allowable in the year in which the debts are actually written off in the books of ac...
Income Tax : Court upheld the validity of the Section 148 notice but set aside the assessment order after finding that notices were sent to an ...
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 quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was obtained from the wrong authority. Notice under Section 148 held invalid, making entire proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal invalidated reassessment proceedings since the Section 148 notice was issued after 01.04.2021, making it time-barred. The ruling reinforces strict limitation compliance for reopening cases.
The issue involved large unsecured loans without full supporting evidence. ITAT held that identity and creditworthiness were not properly established and sent the matter back for fresh verification.
The Tribunal found that capital gains were computed without considering the DVO valuation report. It held that ignoring such evidence is improper and directed reassessment based on correct valuation.
The case examined whether disallowance under section 94(7) should be limited to exempt dividend. The Tribunal held that the provision applies to the full dividend received, rejecting the assessee’s claim.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of loss based on alleged penny stock manipulation was not justified without corroborative evidence. It found that transactions were supported by demat and banking records.
The issue was validity of reopening beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal held the notice issued after the prescribed time was invalid, and quashed the entire reassessment.
The issue was whether full bank deposits of a commission agent can be taxed as unexplained income. The ruling held only commission income taxable, with 8% estimation upheld as reasonable.
The issue was whether reassessment can survive when no addition is made on the stated reasons for reopening. The Tribunal held that such reassessment is invalid, and the AO cannot make unrelated additions.
ITAT held that reassessment without issuing notice under Section 143(2) is invalid, even if return was filed late. The ruling emphasizes that issuance of notice is mandatory and absence of it makes the assessment void.
