Income Tax : Budget 2026 introduces sweeping retrospective amendments affecting limitation, reassessment jurisdiction, DIN validity, and TPO ti...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26.07.2022 was beyond the permissible timeline under the surviving limita...
Income Tax : The Telangana High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after implementation...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that merely declaring presumptive income under Section 44AD does not exempt taxpayers from explaining massive ba...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer made no addition after verifying disclosures, the grievance lacked merit. Groun...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment beyond three years is valid for small additions. ITAT held that without meeting the ₹50 lakh ...
The High Court set aside reassessment notices for not following mandatory faceless procedures introduced by recent Finance Act amendments. The ruling underscores that non-faceless issuance violates statutory requirements.
The ITAT determined that the tax department failed to adhere to the statutory deadline for issuing a Section 148 notice, making the reassessment jurisdiction invalid from the start. The ruling confirms that strict adherence to the extended limitation period is mandatory, and failure to comply results in the entire reassessment being quashed.
Assessing the full cash component of a property sale in the hands of one legal heir was found to be factually incorrect, leading the Tribunal to delete the addition. The appellate authority confirmed that the proceeds were jointly receivable by all co-owners and could not be attributed to the Assessee exclusively as unexplained credit.
ITAT Chandigarh held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO violated statutory provisions, quashing the assessment for AY 2016-17.
ITAT Chandigarh held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO violated statutory provisions, quashing the assessment for AY 2018-19.
Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by annulling assessment without addressing issue of alleged bogus purchases and directed a denovo adjudication on merits in compliance with Section 250(4) and (6).
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment (u/s 147 and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued notices, violating the Section 151A mandate for faceless reassessment. The ruling reinforces that all orders based on notices issued outside the scheme’s scope are void and stand quashed.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment notices (u/s 148A and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued them, violating the mandate of Section 151A under the faceless scheme. The ruling confirms that notices issued outside the centralized, faceless framework are invalid and without authority.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment proceedings, including Section 148A and consequential penalty orders, ruling they were initiated without jurisdiction. The court found that the jurisdictional AO issued notices outside the scope of Section 151A, violating the CBDT’s faceless scheme.
