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 ruled the entire reassessment void ab initio because the 148 notice, issued after March 29, 2022, was served by the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) instead of the mandatory Faceless AO (FAO). Following High Court precedent, the tribunal held that this is a non-curable jurisdictional defect that voids the notice and the subsequent assessment.
Tribunal confirms that notices under section 148 post-March 2022 must be issued by Faceless Assessing Officers, rendering JAO-issued notices void.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer post Faceless Assessment instead of National Faceless Assessment Centre is void and invalid. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The case confirms that the CBDT’s Section 151A notification makes the NFAC/NPAC the sole authority for issuing Section 148 reassessment notices after March 29, 2022.4 The ITAT ruled that the local AO lacked the legal authority, rendering the entire reassessment process and order non est.
ITAT Chennai restored a lakh addition made u/s 115BBC to a trust, granting one chance to furnish complete donor details (name, address, PAN, and mode of receipt).
ITAT Chennai held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be used to substitute the Assessing Officer’s view when proper enquiry was conducted. The AO’s acceptance of business loss and PF/ESI deductions was valid.
Understand the three core processes of Indian Income Tax: Rectification of mistakes (Sec 154), the four types of Assessment (Summary, Scrutiny, Best Judgment, and Reassessment), and the Appeal mechanism to CIT(A)/ITAT against adverse orders.
The Tribunal deleted the entire tax addition, relying on a binding coordinate bench decision that accepted the LTCG on the same scrip (Tuni Textile) under identical facts. This ruling emphasizes judicial discipline and holds that the Revenue cannot ignore established jurisdictional precedents and High Court rulings allowing LTCG when the transaction is supported by concrete, demat-based evidence.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Andaman Timber Industries, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, emphasizing that the right to cross-examination is mandatory for any addition based on a third-party statement. Failure to grant this right nullifies the assessment order.
Holding the tolerance band as a remedial measure, the Tribunal applied it retrospectively to avoid hardship where stamp duty and actual sale values differ by less than 10%.
