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...
The dispute concerned rejection of explanation for cash deposits due to lack of documentation. The Tribunal ruled that evidence relating to sale of inherited assets was vital and must be examined afresh by the tax authorities.
Tribunal held that non-filing of submissions or non-appearance cannot override substantive justice. CIT(A)’s order confirming additions was set aside, and matter remitted for fresh hearing.
ITAT Hyderabad held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable since AO has taken plausible view. Accordingly, assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial hence revision order quashed.
The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of Rs. 10,00,059/- as the addition was based solely on uncorroborated third-party information. No primary evidence linked the assessee to the alleged accommodation entries.
ITAT quashed a reassessment under section 147 as the AO failed to issue the mandatory notice under section 143(2), rendering the assessment legally invalid.
The tribunal found that the income addition of ₹80 lakh was incorrectly attributed to the assessee personally instead of the company, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to grant the minimum seven days’ time under section 148A(b), making the entire process unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational notice for reassessment was invalid, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAC could not stand and was quashed.
The assessment notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO post-29.03.2022 violated the faceless assessment scheme, making the income addition void. The tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.
Karnataka HC held that a notice under Section 148A(b) providing less than the statutory seven days is void. All consequential assessments, penalties, and demands were quashed as a result.
