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 Raipur restored the appeal regarding deletion of ₹15.81 crore addition, highlighting procedural lapses by CIT(A) in accepting new evidence without remand. Key takeaway: AO’s verification is crucial before deleting large additions.
ITAT held that section 263 cannot be invoked unless the PCIT pinpoints an actual error in the AO’s order; since no specific mistake was shown, the revision was invalid.
Reassessment proceedings initiated with approval from the wrong authority were held invalid. Courts reiterated that Section 151(ii) specifies the competent sanctioning authority for notices issued after three years, leading to quashing of the assessment and related demand.
ITAT emphasized that taxpayers must substantiate the receipt and benefit of group services, remanding the matter due to inadequate examination by lower authorities.
The Tribunal applied long-standing rulings invalidating the intensity and BLT approaches for AMP benchmarking, deleting both substantive and protective adjustments. The decision underscores that such methods lack statutory support.
Tribunal reviewed onion cultivation expenses claimed at 21% of gross receipts and found CIT(A)’s 35% estimate excessive. Net agricultural income accepted at Rs.67.12 lakh, partly allowing the appeal.
ITAT restored penalties under Sections 271AAC and 270A after noting CIT(A) dismissed appeal without hearing assessee. Case highlights necessity of providing a fair opportunity before imposing penalties.
Tribunal upholds disallowance of ₹76 lakh paid for regularizing building deviations, ruling such compounding fees are penalties under Section 37(1) and not deductible.
ITAT Delhi restored the appeal to CIT(A) after the assessee challenged notice issuance beyond limitation and under wrong section. Key takeaway: adherence to correct procedure is crucial in income tax assessments.
The Tribunal held that once sales are accepted in audited books, they cannot be reclassified as unexplained cash credits. The addition of ₹41.74 lakh was struck down as it caused double taxation.
