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 alleged unexplained investment was based only on third-party statements and seized digital data. In absence of receipts, confirmations, or admission by the assessee, the addition of ₹50 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal emphasized that documentary evidence including bank statements and lender confirmations sufficiently explained the disputed credits. It held that no addition for unexplained money was warranted.
The Court ruled that reopening based solely on an audit objection amounts to change of opinion if the issue was previously examined. Without fresh tangible material, reassessment proceedings are unsustainable.
The case involved alleged bogus job-work transactions linked to a third party. The Tribunal found the receipts were genuine business income duly audited and taxed, leading to deletion of additions.
The decision clarifies that the monetary threshold under Section 149 applies to actual taxable income, not purchase turnover. As the addition fell below ₹50 lakh, reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that accepting share capital and unsecured loans without proper verification violates Section 68 requirements. It upheld the Principal CITs revision order, stating that failure to investigate renders the order prejudicial to revenue.
The ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society on bank deposits qualifies as business income. Such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal ruled that failure to verify discrepancies in quantitative stock details justified revisionary action. Mere calling of documents without proper examination invites Section 263 proceedings.
The PCIT questioned deduction under Section 80JJAA and CSR expenses but failed to record specific findings. The Tribunal held that absence of independent verification and reasoning renders the Section 263 order invalid.
The ruling highlights that mere failure to file return, without concealment or tax evasion, does not automatically attract Section 270A penalty. Bona fide explanation and TDS compliance protected the taxpayer.
