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...
Gujarat High Court held that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated to review the earlier stand adopted by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 148A(d) on the same ground which is already considered by AO cannot be sustained.
Where the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted international transactions at arm’s length without proposing any variation under Section 92CA(3), assessee did not qualify as an “eligible assessee” under Section 144C(15)(b).
Gujarat HC set aside an income tax reassessment order after the AO failed to consider the taxpayer’s detailed reply, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.
Ramachandra Reddy Vs DCIT: The Karnataka High Court quashes reassessment notices issued by jurisdictional AOs, holding that after the March 29, 2022 notification, all such proceedings must be conducted via the mandatory faceless regime under Section 151A.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act without mandatory Document Identification Number [DIN] is invalid, non-est and hence liable to be quashed. Accordingly, assessment order thereon also collapses.
ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment notices issued in July 2022 for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were barred by limitation, citing a Supreme Court precedent.
Karnataka High Court has ruled that reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid, following a Supreme Court precedent.
High Court set aside the AO’s addition of expenses in the assessment of a SEBI Category II AIF, holding that the addition was unlawful as no deduction was claimed by the fund or its unit holders.
ITAT Chennai ruled that a reassessment initiated by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after March 29, 2022, was invalid, making the subsequent revision order by the PCIT equally void.
TAT Kolkata reverses Rs.1.33 crore tax addition on Sati Saw Mill’s cash deposits, holding that the money was accounted business receipts.
