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 case examined whether reassessment proceedings could survive when issued outside the faceless mechanism. The ruling confirms that non-compliance with the faceless scheme is a fatal jurisdictional defect.
The issue concerned a large Schedule BP deduction disallowed under section 37. The Tribunal held that prima facie the amounts were both added and allowed in the return, warranting fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The issue was whether reassessment becomes invalid when the return is filed on the same day as the assessment order. The Tribunal held that such belated filing cannot nullify a best-judgment reassessment.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could enhance income by adding entire purchases when the AO had only made a small commission addition. The Tribunal held that such enhancement, without fresh material and beyond the subject matter of appeal, is illegal.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the final assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024 beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 153(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that matter of TP adjustment of purchase of raw materials, assembling parts and sale of goods, and interest on trade receivables is remanded back since there are clear mistakes in computation of margins of comparables.
The Tribunal ruled that interest on fixed deposits is not taxable when earned by a State instrumentality. Since it was assessed as “income from other sources,” the trade-or-business exception under Article 289(2) did not apply.
ITAT found that the Assessing Officer failed to examine bank statements and supporting documents explaining cash deposits. The issue was restored for fresh verification with due opportunity to the assessee.
Applying the timelines prescribed in Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal found the notice issued after the permissible window. The ruling reinforces strict adherence to limitation in reassessment cases.
The Assessing Officer proceeded with reassessment after three years based solely on PCIT approval. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with Section 151 is mandatory, and failure renders the notice under Section 148 void.
