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...
Addition of ₹2.28 crore made as long-term capital gains in the hands of the assessee society was deleted in full as amount paid by a developer directly to individual members of a co-operative housing society pursuant to redevelopment cannot be taxed as capital gains in the hands of the society, particularly when the society itself never received the amount.
It was ruled that a reassessment notice issued after expiry of the extended limitation is void. The takeaway is that delayed action under the new reassessment regime is fatal.
ITAT Hyderabad held that final assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by AO beyond the time limit provided under Section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
The High Court held that issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C is invalid where the Transfer Pricing Officer proposes no variation. The key takeaway is that absence of TP adjustment means the assessee is not an “eligible assessee,” making DRP proceedings without jurisdiction.
The ruling found that the authorities failed to examine party-wise payment limits before disallowing expenses for alleged TDS default. Key takeaway: threshold verification is essential before invoking section 40(a)(ia).
The ruling declares reassessment void where notices were not issued through the faceless mechanism post-29.03.2022. Lesson: non-compliance with section 151A vitiates reopening.
The tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued by relying on COVID-era extensions was invalid due to procedural lapses. As a result, the entire reassessment and addition were set aside.
The case addressed the legality of reopening an assessment when the notice was not issued through NFAC. Following jurisdictional High Court rulings, the Tribunal ruled that such deviation vitiates the entire reassessment process.
With the reassessment notice quashed, the consequential assessment order and demand were automatically annulled. The ruling highlights that taxpayers cannot be burdened where initiation itself is unlawful.
The Tribunal ruled that suspicion based on penny stock lists is insufficient to sustain additions. Revenue must prove real purchase and sale transactions through demat and banking records.
