The Tribunal held that a Section 148A(d) order passed by a jurisdictional AO after the faceless notification is without legal authority. Any reassessment founded on such an order is void for want of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that post-notification reassessment notices must strictly follow the faceless assessment framework. Issuance by a jurisdictional AO renders the notice without authority and the reassessment unsustainable.
ROC held that filing an AOC-4 with an incorrect AGM date constitutes a completed default. Subsequent rectification or marking the form as defective does not erase penalty liability.
ROC held that correcting an e-form later does not nullify the original violation. Companies and signatories remain liable for filing inaccurate statutory information.
This case explains that errors in mandatory e-forms, including incorrect AGM details, amount to statutory non-compliance. Both the company and the authorised signatory were penalised under Section 450.
IBBI held that continuous membership of a Registered Valuers Organisation is mandatory. Once expelled by the RVO, a valuer becomes ineligible to continue registration.
The regulator held that expulsion from a Registered Valuers Organisation results in loss of eligibility, justifying immediate cancellation of registration.
The notification substitutes updated tariff tables for specified imports while retaining existing values. The key takeaway is valuation continuity for listed goods from 30 January 2026.
The Tribunal held that where reassessment is based solely on search material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under section 153C. Reopening under section 147 was held to be without jurisdiction and quashed.
Following judicial criticism of delayed appeals, officers urged structural reforms to fix institutional gaps rather than penalising individual officers.
