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...
Saroj Devi Haldiya vs. ITO: The ITAT Jaipur overturned an Rs.75 lakh addition under S. 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal ruled the reassessment was invalid due to borrowed satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, mechanical approval, and a severe violation of natural justice (two-day notice).
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded Dhananjay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd.’s case for fresh assessment, directing the AO to reverify ₹14.39 crore in unsecured loans and creditors under Section 68.
The ITAT Hyderabad in ITO Vs. SR Peddi Estates India Pvt. Ltd. confirmed the deletion of a ₹4.39 crore addition made during reassessment. The Tribunal ruled that bank credits
The Tribunal held that capital gains did not arise in the relevant year because the JDA explicitly stated possession was deemed given only upon handing over the landowners’ built-up share. This means Section 45(1) cannot be invoked until actual possession or consideration is received, overriding the AO’s reliance on stamp duty valuation.
The ITAT ruled against mechanically confirming a large addition under Section 69C, stating that tax authorities must genuinely distinguish between procedural discrepancies and fraudulent inflation. The case was sent back, underscoring that documentary proof is essential before penalizing for purchase differences.
The ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) cannot set aside a reassessment order framed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, as the limited power to remand only applies to best-judgment assessments under Section 144. The Tribunal sent the penny stock LTCG case back, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal strictly on its merits.
Where the only piece of evidence, AO possessed was the ‘Iqrarnama’, which was not found in the assessee’s possession, was not in their handwriting, and did not bear their genuine signatures, no addition could be made to the assessee’s income, treating it as unexplained money and interest.
Assessee has preferred the present appeal mainly assailing validity of final assessment order dated 30.06.2022 on the ground of limitation. It is contested that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) issued directions u/s. 144C(5) of the Act on 23.03.2022, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed final assessment order on 23.06.2022.
Judicial ruling confirms that investment source for property purchased by a homemaker was genuine. The ITAT found that the entire consideration had a clear trail from the son’s account, reversing the mechanical addition made by lower authorities.
Issuance of a valid notice under section 143(2) was mandatory and non-issuance or belated issuance vitiated the assessment. Accordingly, Tribunal quashed the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B as being void ab initio.
