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 core issue was whether lack of knowledge of proceedings justified late appeals. The Tribunal held that notices sent to an inaccessible email amounted to sufficient cause. The decision emphasizes procedural fairness.
The dispute concerned late filing of an audit report triggering penalty under section 271B. The Tribunal accepted personal hardship and first-year audit obligation as reasonable cause under section 273B. The decision reinforces relief where delay is genuine and explained.
ITAT Pune held that deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act admissible on interest income received by co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks and nationalized banks. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The issue was whether reassessment notices could be issued by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless reassessment scheme became mandatory. The Tribunal held that such notices are void, rendering the entire reassessment unsustainable.
The issue was whether an appeal involving large additions could be dismissed solely for delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that technical dismissal was improper and ordered remand with costs. Key takeaway: meritorious matters should be decided on merits, not limitation alone.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated by a jurisdictional officer after faceless schemes became mandatory. The Tribunal held that notices issued outside the faceless mechanism lack jurisdiction and invalidate the reassessment.
While an error in computation was acknowledged, prejudice to Revenue was not established. The Tribunal quashed the revision for lack of both ingredients. The ruling clarifies strict thresholds for invoking section 263.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on borrowed satisfaction, without inquiry or verification by the AO, is unsustainable. Independent application of mind is mandatory under the new regime.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer could issue a reassessment notice only within the balance days available after excluding the stayed period. Issuance beyond that surviving window renders the notice time-barred.
The Tribunal remanded additions based on excess bank credits for factual reconciliation, granting another opportunity subject to costs due to repeated non-appearance.
