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 assessee explained cash deposits through corresponding withdrawals supported by books and bank records. The Tribunal held that such documented transactions cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) cannot exceed the amount certified by DSIR after the 2016 amendment, leading to disallowance of excess R&D claims.
The case examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when approval was obtained from an incorrect authority. The Court held the sanction invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirements, rendering the reassessment void. The ruling highlights strict adherence to approval hierarchy in reopening cases.
ITAT Delhi held that revisionary proceedings under 263 of the Income Tax Act justifiable since related-party expenses were accepted without detailed verification. Accordingly, revision is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 270A as quantum addition was fully removed. Held that no under-reporting exists when assessed income equals returned income and TDS details are already on record.
Applying the computation method laid down in Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal found the notice was issued late. The ruling confirms that delayed notices are void even with extended timelines.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹29.22 lakh addition u/s 56(2)(x), holding that stamp duty value on booking/allotment date must be adopted where consideration was fixed earlier and paid through banking channels, not the higher value on registration date.
The Tribunal condoned delay due to reasonable cause and addressed valuation mismatch. It remanded the issue for DVO-based reassessment. The ruling balances procedural leniency with substantive justice.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be imposed when notices were sent to an inaccessible hacked email. It accepted that delayed compliance had a reasonable cause. The ruling emphasizes fairness in penalty proceedings.
The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 days violates mandatory provisions, rendering the notice and entire reassessment proceedings invalid.
