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 Lucknow directs CIT(A) to reconsider limitation issue in Bharat Shetty’s case, factoring in COVID-19 period for a fresh decision on appeal admissibility.
ITAT Chennai dismisses duplicate appeal filed both online and physically by Buckman Laboratories (India) P. Ltd. in AY 2018-19 tax case.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the same assessing officer is required to pass an order under the new scheme after giving notice under Section 148 of the old Act. Thus, all the writ petition are dismissed.
Calcutta High Court stays Section 148 notice issued by jurisdictional assessing officer citing procedural non-compliance with Section 151A and faceless assessment rules.
Calcutta High Court stays Section 148 notice citing procedural irregularities under Section 151A and faceless assessment rules. Further steps on the notice halted.
Gujarat HC sets aside faceless assessment order due to lack of personal hearing via video conference, directing a fresh order in compliance with natural justice.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT has remanded the matter to AO after observing that revenue has accepted the assessee’s contention in earlier and subsequent years.
ITAT Bangalore held that merely because the assessee has failed to prove any benefit from services received the disallowance of transfer pricing cannot be made. Accordingly, one more opportunity granted to assessee to prove the case.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards section 68 of the Income Tax Act deleted as assessee discharged initial onus by proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that estimation of 8% as income on the total receipt by AO is justifiable since assessee failed to substantiate its claim of earning 5% commission on total receipt. Accordingly, addition confirmed and appeal dismissed.
