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...
Relying on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court rulings, the Tribunal ruled that sanction by an incorrect authority vitiates jurisdiction. The reassessment proceedings were set aside for non-compliance with Section 151.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority exceeded jurisdiction by restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the deemed dividend addition on merits as raised in appeal.
The Tribunal held that after submission of primary creditor details, the burden shifted to the AO to disprove the claim. The case was remanded to ensure fair opportunity and proper inquiry.
The Court ruled that an assessee cannot invoke Section 139(8A) after initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 143(2). It affirmed the disallowance of deductions and held that appeal is the proper remedy.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to factual disputes. In absence of jurisdictional defect, the matter must be adjudicated by the Assessing Officer.
The Court held that notice under Section 148A(b) was valid despite search-related arguments. However, the assessment was set aside due to absence of proper reasoning on denial of Section 10(38) exemption for long-term capital gains.
Once the Central Government notified the Faceless Scheme for reassessment (effective March 29, 2022), the JAO was effectively divested of the power to issue notices under Section 148. The issuance of a notice by a JAO instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) was a jurisdictional error that could not be cured.
The Tribunal held that once depreciation on goodwill is allowed in the first year, it cannot be questioned in subsequent years. Revisional powers under Section 263 were found to be wrongly invoked.
The ITAT held that reassessment is invalid where no addition is made on the sole ground for reopening, leading to the proceedings being quashed.
The Tribunal held that adverse regulatory findings alone cannot justify tax additions when client code modification trades are already recorded in the books and profits are disclosed.
