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...
Upholding the CIT(A)s order, the Tribunal held that settled law bars additions made without factual verification. The case reinforces strict limits on arbitrary taxation of loan transactions.
High Court held that a final assessment order passed without awaiting DRP directions violates section 144C. Such non-compliance rendered the assessment order non est and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment actions taken by the faceless assessment centre before the notified date were without authority. The final assessment order was therefore held invalid.
The Tribunal set aside a ₹18.48 crore addition under Section 56(2)(x) after noting that the nature of the property as stock-in-trade was never examined. The matter was remanded to verify whether the asset was business inventory, in which case the provision would not apply.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer were without authority when the faceless assessment scheme applied. Relying on binding precedents, the writ petition was disposed of in favour of the taxpayer, reaffirming NFAC’s exclusive role.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed after the assessee’s death, without impleading legal heirs, is a nullity in law. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment in accordance with section 159
The issue was whether total purchases could be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. The Tribunal held that only the profit element is taxable in a small retail trading business.
The assessee challenged a large section 14A disallowance on procedural and factual grounds. The Tribunal upheld satisfaction but ordered recomputation after excluding mutual fund investments.
An addition based on a third-party statement was challenged for denial of cross-examination. The Tribunal held that natural justice must be followed and directed a fresh hearing.
The issue was whether reassessment beyond three years was valid without approval from the correct authority. ITAT held the notice void as sanction was taken from the wrong officer, reaffirming strict compliance with Section 151.
