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 assessment notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO post-29.03.2022 violated the faceless assessment scheme, making the income addition void. The tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.
The ITAT held that jewellery tag prices in internal software cannot be equated with realised sales, deleting GP additions made without evidence of suppression.
The Telangana High Court held that proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 initiated post-Faceless Scheme are procedurally invalid. All consequential orders were quashed, while the revenue retains rights under Supreme Court directions.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer was invalid, resulting in the reassessment order being set aside.
Tribunal held that a notice issued by JAO under Section 148 is invalid, emphasizing that only FAO-issued notices comply with faceless reassessment rules. Revenue may seek revival if Supreme Court changes legal position.
The ITAT ruled that unresolved legal grounds—especially on reassessment validity—must first be decided by the CIT(A). The ₹3.32 crore Section 69A addition is remanded for proper adjudication.
The ITAT held that issuance of Section 148 notice by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer violates Section 151A, leading to quashing of the reassessment.
ITAT Hyderabad held that notices issued under Sections 148 and 148A by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were invalid, stressing only FAOs can issue such notices under the faceless assessment scheme.
ITAT Chennai held that a Section 148 notice issued by JAO after 29.03.2022 is invalid, as the faceless assessment scheme is mandatory, nullifying the reassessment order.
Chennai ITAT ruled that a 148 notice issued by JAO post-CBDT faceless scheme notification is invalid, quashing reassessment and penalty. The tribunal confirmed that only notices issued by the Faceless Assessment Unit are legally valid.
