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 Kerala High Court held that Section 144B does not require issuance of a draft assessment order to an ordinary assessee. It ruled that the requirement applies only to an eligible assessee as defined under the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Lucknow upheld deletion of the addition after finding that the cash deposits represented business receipts arising from disclosed sales and were duly recorded in the books of account. It held that section 69A could not be invoked on the facts of the case.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal as time-barred despite a condonation application being on record. The matter was remanded for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the mandatory timeline prescribed under Section 144C(13) after receipt of the DRP’s directions. It declared the assessment void ab initio and allowed the assessee’s appeal.
The ITAT Delhi held that the final assessment order was time-barred as it was passed beyond the mandatory period prescribed under Section 144C(13). The Tribunal ruled that internal departmental communications could not extend the statutory limitation and quashed the assessment.
The ITAT observed that registration undertaken solely to satisfy a banks mortgage requirement cannot automatically attract tax under Section 56(2)(x). It restored the matter for fresh examination of the true nature of the transaction.
The Pune ITAT deleted a ₹10 lakh addition after finding no reliable evidence that the assessee paid cash while purchasing a flat. It held that payments made through banking channels cannot be disregarded merely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.
The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any specific infirmity in the assessee’s business expenditure before making a 10% ad hoc disallowance. The Tribunal therefore upheld the CIT(A)’s order deleting the addition.
The Calcutta High Court held that recovery exceeding 20% of the disputed tax demand during the pendency of an appeal before the CIT(A) was unsustainable in the absence of exceptional circumstances. It directed refund of the excess amount recovered.
Tribunal held that allegations relating to client code modification did not justify adding the entire purchase value under Section 68 in the facts of the case. Following its earlier decision, it upheld taxation only of the profit embedded in the transactions.
