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 case addressed a Rs.605 Cr addition under Section 68 for alleged bogus sales, where the AO didn’t reject the books. The ITAT remanded the matter, directing the AO to recompute income by applying the average three-year Gross Profit rate on sales, establishing that entire sales cannot be taxed as unexplained credits when books aren’t rejected.
The Court held that the entire series of reassessment actions, including the final assessment and penalty notices, were bad in law because the initiating notices were issued by the wrong authority, violating Section 151A. This quashing emphasizes the mandatory nature of the faceless assessment protocol, unless the Supreme Court later validates the department’s action.
The Pune ITAT quashed a Section 263 revision, holding that interest earned by a credit society from deposits in co-operative banks qualifies for the Section 80P deduction as part of business income. The ruling affirms that the AO’s acceptance of the claim, being a plausible view based on precedents, cannot be set aside merely because the PCIT holds a different opinion.
The ITAT Pune ruled that a reassessment initiated under sec.147/148, even for non-filers who later filed a return, is void ab initio if the mandatory 143(2) notice is not issued. The Tribunal set aside the cash deposit addition and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, reinforcing that 143(2) notice is a jurisdictional requirement.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, declaring the reassessment order and all related penalty notices for AY 2016-17 invalid because the initial proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdictional approval under Section 151A. The judgment underscores the critical nature of procedural integrity in faceless assessments, reserving the right for the department to reinstate the case based on a future Supreme Court ruling.
Madras High Court granted an interim stay on all recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department against the reassessment order. The Court explicitly linked its decision and the case’s future to the Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling in Hexaware Technologies, establishing a clear procedural precedent for similar reassessment writ petitions.
The case challenged the sustained addition of purchases solely because the supplier, though having active ITC, failed to respond to a tax notice or was inactive on the GST portal. The Tribunal ruled the entire addition unsustainable, noting the purchases were supported by bank payments, invoices, and stock records. The key takeaway is that the non-cooperation of a supplier or an inactive GST status alone is not sufficient to treat purchases as unexplained expenditure.
The tribunal remanded the appeal to the Commissioner after the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars was affirmed. The assessee is now granted a fresh opportunity to submit documents and respond, ensuring substantial justice.
The ITAT Agra set aside the addition of ₹34.45 crore under Section 41(1) against Ginni Filaments, ruling that the evidence (creditor confirmations, invoices, and payment proof) must first be verified by the AO.
The ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order, confirming that the sale of an entire residential building floor-by-floor to different buyers still constitutes the sale of one single house property for Section 54 claim purposes. Since the AO had already examined the capital gains claim in detail, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue, invalidating the Section 263 proceedings.
