The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless scheme became mandatory was invalid. The key takeaway is that failure to follow the faceless mechanism nullifies the entire reopening, regardless of merits.
The Tribunal ruled that non-compliance with the faceless reassessment scheme strikes at jurisdiction itself. JAO-issued notices post-notification were held legally unsustainable.
Tribunal held that a company engaged in diversified IT consultancy and transformation services cannot be compared with a routine software development service provider
The Tribunal ruled that revising Form 10 during assessment does not invalidate a trust’s accumulation claim when the original form was filed on time. The key takeaway is that revised filings before assessment completion are permissible.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271D were invalid as they were imposed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c).
ITAT Chennai held that the matter of buyback through High Court approved scheme of arrangment remitted back for verification of NAV valuation under rule 11UA and also to analyize applicability of section 115QA. Accordingly, appeal restored back.
The Tribunal ruled that appellate authorities must decide appeals on merits, even if the taxpayer does not appear, reinforcing the mandate of Section 250(6).
The ITAT ruled that appeal limitation must be counted from the date the taxpayer gains knowledge of the order, setting aside dismissal wrongly made on delay grounds.
The ITAT held that professional negligence and continuous medical problems constitute sufficient cause, condoning a 261-day delay and reviving the appeal.
The Tribunal held that a transfer pricing order passed beyond statutory limitation is non est in law. As a result, the assessee ceased to be an eligible assessee under section 144C, making the final assessment beyond limitation and void.
