The Rajasthan High Court ordered the CBDT to extend the Tax Audit Report (TAR) due date to October 31, 2025, citing widespread technical glitches on the e-filing portal and a substantial filing shortfall.
ITAT Mumbai set aside the ex parte dismissal of a Trust’s Section 271(1)(b) penalty appeal. Tribunal mandated a fresh hearing, citing pending Section 144 assessment and natural justice.
ITAT Mumbai set aside DRP directions for Celestial Vision Ltd, ruling the DRP mixed up facts, failed to address 44BB applicability, and mistakenly discussed Section 147 reopening procedures.
In the instant case, the grievance of assessee was directed against the impugned notices dated 24.03.2025 and 28.05.2025 issued under Section 148A(1); the order passed under Section 148A(3); and the consequential notice issued under Section 148, all pertaining to AY 2019-20.
ITAT Mumbai set aside ex-parte assessment and appellate orders against the assessee for AY 2022-23. The matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessee directed to pay ₹25,000 to the PM Relief Fund.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has remanded a case involving the Narayan Cultural Mission, which was denied Section 80G approval due to alleged excessive religious expenditure.
The Kerala High Court ruled that taxpayers must first challenge the validity of a reassessment notice lacking a Document Identification Number (DIN) with the Assessing Officer.
Kerala High Court has dismissed Vimala Hospital’s appeal, ruling that an error in a tax return cannot be corrected through a rectification plea if a revised return was not filed within the statutory timeframe. The court upheld the lower authorities’ decision, stating that the hospital’s voluntary declaration of anonymous donations in its return was binding.
High Court ruled that Section 281B provisional attachment lapses after six months unless extended, directing village officers to restore assessee’s property rights.
The Kerala High Court has granted a hotel a new chance to appeal its tax case, despite a 588-day delay. The court ruled that dismissal on a technicality was unjust when the original tax order may have violated natural justice, ordering the hotel to pay a ₹3 lakh cost for its negligence.
