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 dispute involved denial of indexed interest while computing long-term capital gains. The Tribunal ruled that interest incurred wholly for acquiring an asset is deductible under Section 48.
While following binding High Court precedent on limitation, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order. Liberty was granted to revive the matter depending on the Supreme Court’s final decision.
The Court held that adjusting refunds beyond 20% of a disputed penalty during a pending appeal violates CBDT instructions and ordered refund of the excess amount.
The issue was whether revision is valid when political donations were not fully verified. The Tribunal held that failure to examine genuineness of donees justifies action under Section 263.
The case involved a Section 263 revision alleging failure to make additions after reopening. The Tribunal ruled that once the AO conducts enquiry and takes a conscious decision, revision is impermissible.
Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C on income arising from an APA. Interest was deleted as APA income crystallises only on signing, making advance-tax estimation impossible.
The dispute concerned whether transfer through a release deed amounted to a taxable sale and justified loss claims. The Tribunal remanded the matter, directing verification of books to examine the genuineness of the claimed loss.
The Tribunal found that reasonable opportunity was not given at assessment or appellate stage. The ₹17.94 lakh addition was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The case examined whether a General Power of Attorney could be treated as a Joint Development Agreement for taxing capital gains. The Tribunal held that a GPA does not amount to a transfer, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated with approval from an incorrect authority is invalid. Where the statute mandates sanction from a higher specified authority, deviation vitiates the proceedings.
