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...
ITAT ruled that reassessment made pursuant to a quashed Section 263 order has no legal basis. Subsequent additions cannot stand once the revision itself is annulled.
The Tribunal held that where the difference between purchase consideration and stamp duty value is less than 10%, no addition can be made. The 10% tolerance band was treated as retrospective and applicable to AY 2017–18.
The ruling clarifies that reopening for AY 2016–17 must comply with the correct sanctioning authority requirement. Non-compliance invalidates the notice and all consequential actions under the Act.
The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is unsustainable. The reassessment and all consequential penalties were accordingly quashed.
The Tribunal confirmed that once identity, source, and movement of funds are established through records, treating the investment as unexplained is unjustified. Revenues appeal was dismissed.
ITAT held that goodwill arising from acquisition of a business as a going concern represents a bundle of commercial and business rights. Following Supreme Court precedent, depreciation under Section 32 was allowed for AY 2018–19.
Where more than three years had elapsed, approval from the higher specified authority was compulsory before issuing notice. Failure to obtain such approval vitiated the reassessment proceedings.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment notice issued beyond three years is invalid where alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Non-compliance with amended section 151 rendered the notice and entire proceedings void.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)s detailed order deleting additions based on proper verification of evidence. All grounds raised by Revenue were rejected, and cross-objection became infructuous.
The Tribunal emphasized that the test under Section 57(iii) is one of purpose and connection. As the assessee demonstrated reasonable nexus between borrowings and interest income, the deduction was upheld.
