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...
Calcutta High Court remands Sreelekha Banerjee’s 2019-20 tax assessment case to Faceless Assessment Unit for review, citing inadequate response time and natural justice principles.
CBDT issues guidelines for IT verification under Section 144B(5), detailing circumstances for digital and physical checks, effective immediately.
Bombay High Court held that it was not permissible for the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to issue a notice under Section 148A(b), as the same would amount to breach of the provisions of section 151A of the Income Tax Act (i.e. faceless assessment scheme).
ITAT Chennai confirmed penalty imposed under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for non-furnishing audit report, in absence of any reasonable or sufficient cause for not complying with legal provisions of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act.
Calcutta High Court held that petitioner not put to notice in respect of addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as notice was issued making addition u/s. 68. Accordingly, the same is violative of principles of natural justice.
Bombay High Court quashes reassessment notice in Paras Mahendra Shah vs. Union of India due to non-compliance with Section 151A of the Income Tax Act.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that only Faceless Assessment Officers can issue notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, not Jurisdictional Officers.
ITAT Jaipur quashes PCIT order in Yesh Dagas case, citing violation of natural justice principles. Key points of the judgment and implications discussed in detail.
Read about the Karnataka High Courts decision quashing an Income Tax demand order due to insufficient time provided for reply to a notice in Mohammed Saits case.
Read the full text of the ITAT Kolkata order in Keshav Shroff Vs ITO (AY 2016-17). Analysis shows why mere suspicion isn’t enough for an IT notice.
