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 Tribunal ruled that treating a belated return as non est is legally unsustainable. Absence of a Section 143(2) notice invalidates the entire reassessment proceedings.
The reassessment was annulled after the notice was found procedurally defective. The Tribunal affirmed that binding High Court precedent required issuance by a faceless AO.
The Tribunal held that reassessment fails when the show-cause notice is issued on an incorrect factual premise. Jurisdiction under section 147 collapses if the foundation under section 148A is flawed.
The reassessment was struck down as sanction was obtained from a Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority under Section 151. Jurisdictional defect invalidated all subsequent proceedings.
The Tribunal followed binding High Court precedents to hold that reassessment must strictly adhere to the faceless mechanism. Deviation from the mandated procedure invalidated the notice and the entire reassessment.
Holding that actions prescribed by statute must be performed only in the specified manner, the Tribunal deleted the penalty. The case reinforces the importance of lawful service of notices before penal action.
The tribunal held that reassessment initiated through a jurisdictional officer instead of the mandatory faceless mechanism was invalid. Notices under Section 148 issued after 01.04.2021 must follow the faceless scheme, failing which the entire assessment collapses.
Although the assessee quoted the wrong provision in the appeal form, the challenge was clearly against a scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal ruled that procedural lapses cannot defeat a valid statutory appeal.
The dispute involved additions of partners capital treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal did not rule on merits but remanded the matter due to procedural violation by the appellate authority. It highlights that appellate orders must be reasoned and speaking.
The tribunal held that refusal to condone delay defeats substantial justice when reasonable cause exists. Delay was directed to be condoned and appeal heard on merits.
