Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be levied merely because income was estimated after rejection of books. Si...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department explains how faceless assessments under Section 144B operate through the e-Filing portal without requiri...
Income Tax : The guide explains faceless assessments, appeals, penalties, rectification requests, and demand responses under the Income-tax Act...
Income Tax : Courts have held that non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 144B renders faceless assessment orders void. The rul...
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 Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and ear...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata condoned appeal delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the assessment for fresh adjudication after grantin...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed a Section 148 notice issued after the limitation under the first proviso to Section 149, holding the reassessm...
Income Tax : The High Court held that an assessment order passed without issuing a show cause notice detailing the proposed additions violated ...
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 High Court set aside a Section 148 notice issued without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B. It held that such action was without jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai held that requirement of Form no. 3CL for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is effective only from AY 2016-2017. Accordingly, denial of claim for pre-amended period is not justifiable. Thus, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that failure of the Assessing Officer to examine ownership of multiple houses while allowing Section 54F deduction made the order erroneous and prejudicial. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The High Court quashed an assessment order passed without granting personal hearing despite a written request. It held that refusal on technical grounds violated principles of natural justice.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment beyond three years is invalid if approval is not obtained from the specified higher authority under Section 151(ii). The notice under Section 148 was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that failure of the Assessing Officer to verify genuineness of a ₹30 lakh donation under Section 80GGC rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, justifying revision under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that reassessment cannot survive when the final addition differs from the reasons recorded. Treating dividend as unexplained cash credit was beyond the scope of reopening.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹2 crore additions, holding assessment based solely on third-party investigation report and assumed 3% commission unsustainable without independent evidence or proof under Sec 69A.
ITAT ruled that once the Assessing Officer makes no addition on the issue forming the basis of reopening, other additions cannot survive. MAT demand under Section 115JB was therefore struck down as unlawful.
ITAT quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was granted by PCIT instead of PCCIT. Notice issued after three years was held void for lack of proper jurisdiction.
