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 held that an ex parte assessment involving large unexplained bank credits required fresh adjudication. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer with one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that deduction under section 80P cannot be allowed without a timely return but restored the matter to enable condonation under the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal ruled that repeated reopening cannot survive where statutory timelines are breached. A reassessment initiated beyond the permissible surviving period was quashed in entirety.
The Tribunal held that issuing a Section 143(2) notice is compulsory once a return is filed under Section 148. Absence of such notice vitiates jurisdiction and nullifies the reassessment.
The assessing authority made a large addition without explaining its nature or legal basis. The Tribunal ruled that such a cryptic order cannot stand and set aside the addition.
The Tribunal observed that the transfer pricing adjustment was based on unexplained margin calculations. A fresh working was directed to ensure accurate benchmarking of international transactions.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer violated the mandatory faceless regime under Sections 144B and 151A. Non-compliance with the prescribed faceless procedure renders the entire reassessment void ab initio.
The issue was whether a DRP-based assessment passed after the statutory period survives. The Tribunal held the delay fatal and quashed the assessment in entirety.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on unverified Investigation Wing inputs, factual inconsistencies, and no direct nexus to the assessee’s transactions is invalid. Mechanical reproduction of information cannot sustain reassessment.
The Tribunal confirmed that post-2021 reassessment notices must strictly comply with amended section 151. Non-compliance with the specified approving authority deprives the Assessing Officer of jurisdiction.
