Income Tax : Budget 2026 introduces sweeping retrospective amendments affecting limitation, reassessment jurisdiction, DIN validity, and TPO ti...
Income Tax : The issue was whether addition can be made based on third-party investigation findings. The Tribunal held that without direct incr...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires escaped income in the form of an asset. Since bogus purchases are rev...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that dividend received from identifiable mutual funds through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains from share sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit when the assessee prov...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that Section 148A(b) requires a minimum of seven days for the assessee to respond. Failure to grant this statut...
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.
ITAT Chennai annulled the Section 148-based reassessment for AY 2018-19 because the notice contravened the e-assessment scheme under Sec.151A. The ruling reinforces mandatory compliance with faceless notice issuance.
The ITAT ruled that a Section 148 notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 is invalid because, under the Faceless Reassessment Scheme, only the Faceless Assessing Officer can issue such notices. The entire reassessment was therefore quashed as without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that once the 29.03.2022 Scheme came into force, only faceless units could issue such notices; a JAO-issued notice was illegal, nullifying the entire reassessment.
ITAT Chennai ruled that Section 148 notices issued manually by a Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 violate the faceless reassessment procedure. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order, emphasizing that only NFAC-issued notices are legally valid.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO under Sections 148A(b) and 148 after the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme, 2022, is without jurisdiction and void. The reassessment order based on such notice was consequently quashed. This ruling reinforces the mandatory requirement for faceless reassessment under the 2022 scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Section 148 notice issued by the jurisdictional officer instead of the faceless authority violated Section 151A. With the notice invalid, the reassessment and jewellery addition were quashed.
The ITAT concluded that non-compliance with faceless procedure under Section 151A renders Section 148 notices invalid, nullifying both substantive and protective additions.
