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...
ITAT Mumbai rules against Section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition, stating property valuation should be based on the agreement date, not registration, when payments are made by banking channels.
ITAT Jaipur held that newly inserted Explanation 2(a) to Sec. 263 does not give unfettered powers to Commissioner to revise each order. Held that revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 not justified as order not erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue.
ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment for AY 2015-16, finding the Section 148 notice issued on July 29, 2022, was beyond the statutory limitation period.
Assessee then filed an appeal before Tribunal. It was held that assessee had included net gain of ₹17.02 crore from foreign currency transactions and translations in its operating income, but DRP had rejected the claim.
ITAT Mumbai held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on account of difference of opinion is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, revision order passed by PCIT is liable to be quashed.
Orissa High Court sets aside NFAC assessment order for Ramshankar Mahapatra, ruling inadequate 4-day notice violated natural justice and 7-day SOP.
Delhi High Court held that notice issued u/s. 148 and assessment order thereon is liable to be set aside as sanction of issuance of notice not granted by authority specified under section 151 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of asset allowed and demand set aside.
ITAT Jaipur held that denial of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act for non-filing of return before due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) not justified since aggregate annual receipts doesn’t exceed specified limit. Accordingly, exemption granted and appeal allowed.
Chennai ITAT allows taxpayer another chance to prove Rs. 18 lakh cost of improvement claim, setting aside ex-parte disallowance by tax authorities.
Calcutta High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 for claim of bogus capital gain sustained fundamentals of company are very weak and abnormal price rise in share is artificially manipulated.
