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 held that a mismatch in loan repayment figures arising from an unpresented cheque could not automatically justify addition under Section 68. The Tribunal directed limited verification of subsequent payment before deciding the taxability issue conclusively.
The Tribunal held that differences between customs assessable value and invoice value cannot automatically justify additions under Section 69C. The ruling clarifies that actual unexplained expenditure must first be proved by the Revenue.
The High Court held that adjustment of refunds beyond 20% of disputed tax demand during pendency of appeal was unsustainable without proper justification. It directed refund of the excess amount adjusted under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment notices issued after expiry of the surviving limitation period under the amended reassessment regime were invalid. The Tribunal quashed the reopening proceedings and related penalties for both assessment years.
ITAT Kolkata set aside the appellate order after observing inconsistencies between the findings of the CIT(A) and the assessment order. The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication with a reasoned speaking order and proper opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT observed that interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act differs from ordinary interest under Section 34 and forms part of enhanced compensation. Therefore, taxation provisions relating to interest income were held inapplicable.
The ITAT restored the ₹1.36 crore stock valuation addition to the AO after finding that the assessee’s Weighted Average Cost method under AS-2 and ICDS-II was never properly examined. The Tribunal directed fresh verification of inventory valuation records.
The Mumbai ITAT held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly verify bank statements, credit card records, and company ledger accounts before making the addition under Section 68. The matter was restored for fresh examination and reconciliation of records.
The ITAT held that old unsecured loan balances carried forward from earlier years cannot automatically be treated as unexplained cash credits in a subsequent year.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued on 25.07.2022 were time-barred since the Revenue had only one surviving day left under the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal limitation formula.
