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...
ITAT Pune ruled that interest earned by a cooperative society from ICICI and HDFC banks retains its character as business income and qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a).
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 must follow the faceless mechanism prescribed by the CBDT Scheme, 2022. Issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer vitiated the proceedings.
The Karnataka High Court invalidated a faceless assessment because the show-cause notice gave the assessee less than seven days to respond, violating mandatory SOP and principles of natural justice.
The High Court held that an assessment completed without granting a real opportunity to respond cannot stand. Ex parte reassessment and penalty orders were therefore set aside.
The issue involved reassessment completed without a reply to the reopening notice. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29-03-2022 violated the mandatory faceless reassessment scheme. Such a jurisdictional lapse vitiates the entire proceedings.
The High Court held that granting less than seven days to reply to a show-cause notice violates mandatory SOPs. Such a breach vitiates the entire faceless assessment process.
The ITAT held that reassessment based purely on an Investigation Wing report, without the Assessing Officer forming an independent belief, is invalid. Copy-pasted reasons failed to establish a live link between material and escapement of income.
The case involved reassessment based on alleged cash payment for property. The Tribunal held that basic fact-checking is mandatory before confirming a ₹71.23 lakh addition under Section 69A.
ITAT held that on-money admitted by a seller before the Settlement Commission cannot be presumed against the purchaser without independent evidence. In absence of any seized material or proof of cash payment, the addition u/s 69 was deleted.
