$\text{Karnataka \text{ HC}$ quashes AY 2018-19 reassessment and penalty, ruling that Section 148A(b) notice granting only $\text{5 \text{ days}$ to respond violated the mandatory “not less than seven days” rule.
High Court held that reassessment notices/orders issued by the AO, rather than NFAC, are void due to jurisdictional defects. The ruling reinforces procedural fairness and statutory compliance.
Karnataka High Court sets aside reassessment order, ruling that the jurisdictional AO lacked authority to issue a notice and complete proceedings by bypassing the mandatory $\text{Faceless \text{ Assessment \text{ Scheme}}$ (NFAC).
Karnataka HC quashed a faceless ex-parte tax assessment and penalties, ruling that statutory notice sent to an inactive email ID invalidates the entire assessment process.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that when reassessment is based solely on material seized from a third-party search, the Income Tax Department must follow the specific procedure under Section 153C of the IT Act, not the general Section 147.
The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of United Spirits Ltd., directing the DCIT to immediately refund ₹60.45 crore. The court held that the adjustment of the refund against a non-existent and time-barred tax demand was illegal, reinforcing the strict limitation under Section 153(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Karnataka HC rules compensation for land acquired by KIADB is exempt from income tax under Section 96 of the 2013 Land Act and confirms the refund of collected TDS.
N.T. Rahamathulla Khan Associates vs PCIT: High Court grants stay on tax demand, following precedent to protect the assessee from coercive recovery pending appeal outcome.
Karnataka HC quashes reassessment and penalty orders after finding the Jurisdictional AO initiated Sec 148A proceedings outside the scope of the Faceless Regime (Sec 151A).
Dakshina Kannada Sanathana Dharma Sangha vs ITO: High Court applies the Ramakrishna Seva Ashrama test, directing the AO to verify oral intent for corpus contributions.
