Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be levied merely because income was estimated after rejection of books. Si...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department explains how faceless assessments under Section 144B operate through the e-Filing portal without requiri...
Income Tax : The guide explains faceless assessments, appeals, penalties, rectification requests, and demand responses under the Income-tax Act...
Income Tax : Courts have held that non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 144B renders faceless assessment orders void. The rul...
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 Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and ear...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata condoned appeal delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the assessment for fresh adjudication after grantin...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed a Section 148 notice issued after the limitation under the first proviso to Section 149, holding the reassessm...
Income Tax : The High Court held that an assessment order passed without issuing a show cause notice detailing the proposed additions violated ...
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 Delhi remitted a case where CIT(A) upheld additions without examining available evidence. The ruling reinforces that authorities must fully consider documents and explanations before confirming unexplained investments.
Delhi High Court held that tax authorities cannot replace projected business valuations with actual results when assessing transfer pricing, emphasizing commercial prudence principle in asset transfers.
ITAT Delhi dismissed the appeal challenging PCIT’s exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263, holding that the Commissioner can revise orders even when the matter is pending before CIT(A). Key takeaway: jurisdiction under Sec. 263 extends to unresolved appeals.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed since AO took one of the possible views while allowing claim of deduction under section 54F. Accordingly, order is quashed and appeal is allowed.
Denial of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) for non-furnishing of Form 3CL did not preclude normal deduction u/s 35(1)(i) and depreciation u/s 32, as the research was related to the assessee’s business.
The ITAT Mumbai held that income already taxed in the hands of a trust cannot be taxed again in the hands of its beneficiary, deleting an addition of ₹1.24 crore.
AO must apply their own mind to the contents of the DVO report and any other available material as relying solely on a DVO’s report without any independent inquiry or satisfaction was a fundamental jurisdictional flaw that invalidated the entire reassessment proceeding from the start.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Assessing Officer made detailed enquiries before allowing ESOP expenditure, invalidating the PCIT’s revision under section 263.
The Delhi High Court set aside reassessment notice and order against Sarthak Gupta for AY 2014–15, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal.
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the case of Harshang Kaushikkumar Rami vs ITO to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of Rs. 5 crore cash deposits treated as unexplained income.
