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...
Addition of ₹2.28 crore made as long-term capital gains in the hands of the assessee society was deleted in full as amount paid by a developer directly to individual members of a co-operative housing society pursuant to redevelopment cannot be taxed as capital gains in the hands of the society, particularly when the society itself never received the amount.
It was ruled that a reassessment notice issued after expiry of the extended limitation is void. The takeaway is that delayed action under the new reassessment regime is fatal.
ITAT Hyderabad held that final assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by AO beyond the time limit provided under Section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
The High Court held that issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C is invalid where the Transfer Pricing Officer proposes no variation. The key takeaway is that absence of TP adjustment means the assessee is not an “eligible assessee,” making DRP proceedings without jurisdiction.
The ruling found that the authorities failed to examine party-wise payment limits before disallowing expenses for alleged TDS default. Key takeaway: threshold verification is essential before invoking section 40(a)(ia).
The ruling declares reassessment void where notices were not issued through the faceless mechanism post-29.03.2022. Lesson: non-compliance with section 151A vitiates reopening.
The tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued by relying on COVID-era extensions was invalid due to procedural lapses. As a result, the entire reassessment and addition were set aside.
The case addressed the legality of reopening an assessment when the notice was not issued through NFAC. Following jurisdictional High Court rulings, the Tribunal ruled that such deviation vitiates the entire reassessment process.
With the reassessment notice quashed, the consequential assessment order and demand were automatically annulled. The ruling highlights that taxpayers cannot be burdened where initiation itself is unlawful.
The Tribunal ruled that suspicion based on penny stock lists is insufficient to sustain additions. Revenue must prove real purchase and sale transactions through demat and banking records.
