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 examined whether interest earned from co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are also co-operative societies, making such income eligible.
The Tribunal invalidated reopening as the AO obtained approval from the wrong authority. It held that compliance with Section 151 is a jurisdictional requirement. Key takeaway: improper sanction nullifies reassessment.
The court examined whether a final assessment order could stand without issuing a draft order to an eligible assessee. It held that bypassing the mandatory draft assessment process invalidates the final order and renders it void.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It clarified that co-operative banks are to be treated as co-operative societies. The ruling resolves disputes on eligibility of such income.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes Section 69A additions in alleged penny stock case, holding that documented share transactions cannot be treated as bogus based on suspicion or general investigation reports without specific evidence against the assessee.
The High Court quashed assessment and penalty orders after finding notices were sent to an incorrect email address. It held that improper service denied the taxpayer a fair hearing, violating natural justice. The case underscores the necessity of valid notice for lawful proceedings.
ITAT held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval from the higher authority, not PCIT. Since approval was wrongly obtained, the entire reassessment was quashed.
ITAT allowed additional evidence filed by the legal heir and remanded the matter to the AO for verification. The key takeaway is that justice requires giving opportunity where evidence was earlier unavailable.
The Tribunal held that audited accounts cannot replace documentary evidence for claiming application of income. The case was remanded for fresh verification.
The reassessment notice issued within four years was wrongly quashed by applying amended law. The Tribunal restored the matter, emphasizing correct application of applicable provisions.
