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 Mumbai ITAT restored additions relating to unreconciled DGFT import and export figures after finding that complete data relied upon by the Department had not been furnished to the assessee. The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication after providing detailed DGFT records and an opportunity for reconciliation.
The Telangana High Court refused to interfere with a faceless income tax assessment order despite claims of medical hardship and lack of opportunity. The Court held that repeated adjournments and failure to seek video conferencing weakened the taxpayer’s natural justice argument.
ITAT Surat restored reassessment appeals to the CIT(A) after observing that the assessee should receive one final opportunity to present evidence. The Tribunal imposed costs due to partial compliance before the appellate authority.
Delhi ITAT directed exclusion of a comparable company engaged in video conferencing solutions after noting that the DRP had already found it functionally incomparable to the assessee’s software distribution business.
The ITAT Amritsar remanded a case involving denial of section 54B exemption where the assessee relied on Girdawari records to prove agricultural use of land. The Tribunal directed fresh verification of land records after finding disputes regarding cultivation entries in revenue documents.
The Bangalore ITAT held that an assessee claiming exemption based on Form 16 issued by the employer acted under a bona fide belief and cannot automatically be penalized for misreporting. The Tribunal deleted the ₹51.20 lakh penalty levied under Section 270A.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under Section 69A could not survive when based solely on a third-party statement without granting cross-examination. The Tribunal ruled that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
The ITAT Delhi held that undisclosed income declared under IDS-2016 but unpaid within prescribed time must be taxed in the year of declaration, not the original assessment year. The reassessment addition for AY 2013-14 was deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that NIL taxable income disclosed by an Alternative Investment Fund does not automatically negate its creditworthiness. The Tribunal recognized the statutory pass-through taxation mechanism applicable to AIF structures.
The Tribunal ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot pass two reassessment orders for the same assessment year, same transaction, and same addition. The first reassessment proceedings were held legally unsustainable.
