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 tribunal observed that Way Bills produced by the assessee prima facie supported the claim of business sales. The addition was therefore set aside and restored for fresh verification.
The ITAT held that equity share purchases routed through the disclosed bank account cannot be treated as unexplained without proper verification. The AO was directed to provide transaction details and re-examine the source to avoid double additions.
The Tribunal found that notices issued manually by the jurisdictional officer contravene the faceless reassessment framework. There is no concurrent jurisdiction between faceless and jurisdictional officers. Any reassessment initiated this way is invalid from inception.
The Tribunal held that after 29-03-2022, only a Faceless Assessing Officer is empowered to issue notices under Section 148. Notices issued by a jurisdictional officer were declared void, vitiating the entire reassessment.
ITAT Bangalore directs reassessment with full hearing for an agriculturist after procedural lapses in notices and missed hearings. The ruling emphasizes the importance of fair opportunity under Sections 148 and 144B.
ITAT Jaipur held that claim on account of provision of future expense is allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as per matching principle of accountancy. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The dispute involved alleged non-compliance with mandatory faceless assessment procedure rendering the order non est. The ITAT held that remanding without ruling on section 144B(9) violations is impermissible.
The Revenue argued for exclusion of the 148A show-cause period to justify approval. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the exclusion proviso applies only prospectively from Finance Act 2023.
The Tribunal ruled that appellate authorities must decide appeals on merits, even if the taxpayer does not appear, reinforcing the mandate of Section 250(6).
The ITAT held that appeals must be filed before the correct jurisdictional bench. An appeal filed before the wrong Tribunal is liable to dismissal at the threshold.
