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...
The High Court set aside a Section 148 notice issued without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B. It held that such action was without jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai held that requirement of Form no. 3CL for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is effective only from AY 2016-2017. Accordingly, denial of claim for pre-amended period is not justifiable. Thus, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that failure of the Assessing Officer to examine ownership of multiple houses while allowing Section 54F deduction made the order erroneous and prejudicial. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The High Court quashed an assessment order passed without granting personal hearing despite a written request. It held that refusal on technical grounds violated principles of natural justice.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment beyond three years is invalid if approval is not obtained from the specified higher authority under Section 151(ii). The notice under Section 148 was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that failure of the Assessing Officer to verify genuineness of a ₹30 lakh donation under Section 80GGC rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, justifying revision under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that reassessment cannot survive when the final addition differs from the reasons recorded. Treating dividend as unexplained cash credit was beyond the scope of reopening.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹2 crore additions, holding assessment based solely on third-party investigation report and assumed 3% commission unsustainable without independent evidence or proof under Sec 69A.
ITAT ruled that once the Assessing Officer makes no addition on the issue forming the basis of reopening, other additions cannot survive. MAT demand under Section 115JB was therefore struck down as unlawful.
ITAT quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was granted by PCIT instead of PCCIT. Notice issued after three years was held void for lack of proper jurisdiction.
