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 ₹19.6 lakh addition for AY 2018-19, citing the retrospective application of the 10% safe harbour limit as a curative amendment under the Income Tax Act.
Assessee filed return for AY 2013-14 declaring Nil income. The case of the assessee was reopened based on information received from investigation unit that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries and bogus LTCG.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act quashed since enquiry already conducted by AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Punjab & Haryana HC invalidates Section 148 notice due to non-compliance with faceless assessment provisions under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Punjab & Haryana High Court sets aside notice under Section 148 in Mohan Jit Singh case, following prior judgments in similar cases.
Punjab & Haryana High Court quashes tax notices, ruling that statutory provisions take precedence over Board circulars in Anju Arora v. Union of India case.
Clause (ba) of sub-section (1) of section 12A was applicable for AY.2018-19 onwards and not for AY.2017-18, assessee-temple trust was entitled to tax exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 . Hence, the order of AO was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and therefore, it was not amenable to revision u/s 263.
In the case abovementioned ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the matter to CIT (A) after considering that assessee could not file evidence before CIT (A) in lack of service of notices.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Employee Stock Option Plans [ESOP] expenses should not be regarded contingent or notional and it should be allowed as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Allahabad High Court held that the resolution applicant cannot be saddled with new claims once a resolution plan has been approved. Thus, any new liability being fastened after the approval of the Resolution Plan would inherently and palpably be illegal.
