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...
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.
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.
