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 ITAT held that reassessment based on a duplicate PAN, despite disclosure under a valid PAN, suffers from jurisdictional infirmity. Ex parte orders passed without addressing such objections violate principles of natural justice.
The issue was whether appeals dismissed as time-barred should be revived when delay was caused by a tax consultant. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the cases for merits-based adjudication.
The ITAT emphasised that dismissal of appeals without dealing with substantive grounds is legally untenable. NFAC was directed to rehear the reassessment appeals after granting reasonable opportunity.
The appeals were dismissed solely due to delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that substantive justice requires condonation, though costs may be imposed for repeated defaults.
This case dealt with an addition confirmed without adequate opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal held that passing an order without considering filed replies is unsustainable, and directed a de novo assessment.
The issue was whether reassessment and LTCG addition could rest solely on INSIGHT portal information. The ITAT held that without independent enquiry or corroborative material, such inputs cannot sustain reopening or additions. The key takeaway is that suspicion can-not substitute evidence.
ITAT Vishakhapatnam held that reopening notice u/s. 148 being issued beyond period of three years on the basis of approval u/s. 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act obtained from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax [Pr. CIT] instead of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General is invalid and liable to be quashed.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal noted that even the Revenue admitted TOLA does not cover AY 2015-16. Notices issued after the original limitation period were therefore invalid.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowing outstanding sub-contract expenses payable under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit without specific reasoning and without pointing out defects in books of accounts is not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and disallowance is deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that condoning a delay in filing an appeal does not replace the right to present submissions on merits and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
