Judicial precedent from Karnataka HC confirms that Assessing Officer must provide not less than seven days to an assessee to respond to a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b). Failure to comply renders the notice and all subsequent reassessment steps, including the order and penalty notice, invalid.
ITAT Chennai allowed AM International Holdings’ claim for ₹60.94 lakh software expenses, ruling that the reimbursement paid to a group company, Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Ltd., for terminating an unsatisfactory IT contract was a legitimate business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Rectification Can’t Rewrite Scrutiny Order — ITAT Quashes 80P Disallowance for Co-op Society; ITAT Bangalore sets aside rectification disallowing 80P deduction – delay condoned for co-operative society Assessee, a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, filed return for AY 2020-21 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) […]
The Karnataka High Court set aside the PCIT’s rejection of a condonation delay application for late online Form 68 filing. The court adopted a justice-oriented view, directing a fresh, liberal reconsideration, as the taxpayer’s manual compliance was timely and the error was bona fide.
Ahmedabad ITAT quashes reassessments based on ACB report, ruling the AO lacked independent “reason to believe” and only used borrowed satisfaction. A void assessment cannot be revised under Section 263.
Madras HC rules that mere delay in paying admitted tax isn’t ‘wilful evasion’ under S276 C(2) Prosecution requires intent; payment before cognizance disproves mens rea.
Karnataka High Court quashes all reassessment notices and orders issued under the faceless scheme for being outside the permissible scope of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act. This ruling voids notices due to a lack of statutory jurisdiction, though the Revenue is allowed to seek a revival if the Supreme Court later rules in its favor.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, declaring the reassessment order and all related penalty notices for AY 2016-17 invalid because the initial proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdictional approval under Section 151A. The judgment underscores the critical nature of procedural integrity in faceless assessments, reserving the right for the department to reinstate the case based on a future Supreme Court ruling.
Karnataka High Court quashed reassessment notices and orders for AY 2019-20, ruling they were issued without proper jurisdiction and violated the framework of Section 151A. This decision voids the proceedings due to a jurisdictional defect, granting the Revenue liberty to revive the case only after the Supreme Court’s final decision.
ITAT Lucknow set aside a PCIT’s revisional order under Section 263, ruling it was void due to a violation of natural justice. The PCIT used external adverse material (alleging shell company purchases) against the assessee without providing a chance for rebuttal or considering evidence already filed, making the order invalid.
