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 Kolkata deletes ₹8.27 lakh addition under Section 69A, ruling cash deposits belonged to Seva Kendra, not the assessee. Penalty also set aside.
ITAT Chennai remands Rs.117.01 lakh addition for fresh review, citing non-consideration of assessee’s details in assessment.
The petitioner no.1 was the erstwhile company that went through insolvency proceedings. The resolution plan was approved on February 24, 2021 wherein the Income Tax Department had also put forward its claim before the resolution professional.
ITAT Ahmedabad refers Rs. 99.52 lakh addition under Section 69 to AO for fresh examination. Case pertains to unexplained loans in Dharmendrasinh Chudasama vs ITO.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands Bholaram Education Society’s tax appeal for fresh hearing after procedural lapses in notices and portal access issues.
Bombay High Court held that assessment order passed after expiry of period of limitation as prescribed under section 153 of the Income Tax Act read with first proviso below explanation 1 is barred by limitation. Accordingly, petition succeeds.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act by PCIT in absence of any supporting documents/ materials justifiable. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad allows Ashokbhai Shah’s appeal for AY 2014-15, addressing issues of capital gains and procedural lapses by the AO.
In the matter above-mentioned ITAT resored the matter to CIT (A) who did not provide opportunity of being heard by way of video conferencing despite request.
It was claimed that the notice under Section 148 was time-barred, reasons recorded under Section 147 were vague, and proper show-cause notices were not issued, violating Section 144B.
