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...
Madras High Court sets aside an assessment order, granting a taxpayer opportunity to respond to notices after their authorized representative’s hospitalization for surgery.
Madras High Court orders tax re-assessment for teacher who claimed account misuse by bank manager, citing prior fraud case and denial of fair hearing.
ITAT Mumbai held that the cash deposited is out of the gross receipts and that once gross receipts are disputed then no addition is sustainable under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent and addition deleted.
ITAT Chennai imposes ₹10,000 cost on taxpayer for non-appearance, remands appeal on gold sale and gift additions to CIT(A) for fresh hearing.
Bombay High Court remands Dev Marketing’s tax assessment after Income Tax Department admits a bonafide error in denying a requested video conference hearing.
ITAT Kolkata dismisses Revenue appeal against Intime Vanijya Private Limited as tax effect on Section 68 addition falls below CBDT’s ₹60 lakh threshold.
ITAT Rajkot held that the reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act has been issued without obtaining the approval as prescribed under amended provision of section 151 of the Act is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT(A) accepted additional evidence and allowed the relief u/s. 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act without allowing an opportunity of being heard to AO. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is in contravention of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition foisted upon the assessee in injudicious manner by the lower authority demonstrates lack of requisite care and caution since neither the initiation of reassessment proceedings nor the consequent addition was warranted.
Assessee, i.e., the father of the minor, Mr. Yogesh Mafatlal Bhansali had originally filed his income tax return declaring a total income of ₹2,71,630, which was accepted after a limited scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).
