Income Tax : Budget 2026 introduces sweeping retrospective amendments affecting limitation, reassessment jurisdiction, DIN validity, and TPO ti...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata quashed NFAC reassessment and consequential penalty, holding faceless reassessment lacked jurisdiction before Section...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted bogus purchase additions, holding that genuine purchases and sales were supported by documentary evidence and t...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment for approval under Section 151(ii) by the wrong authority and deleted penalties under Sections 27...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond three years is void when sanctioned by the PCIT instead of the authority p...
Income Tax : The ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained where they were sourced from earlier withdrawals fr...
Karnataka High Court invalidated reassessment proceedings and related notices for AY 2015-16, holding that actions initiated beyond Section 151A are legally void.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29-03-2022 violated the mandatory faceless reassessment scheme. Such a jurisdictional lapse vitiates the entire proceedings.
The High Court set aside reassessment proceedings after holding that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer violate the faceless assessment mandate under Section 151A.
Holding the issue covered by binding precedent, the Court ruled that reassessment proceedings not conducted in a faceless manner are unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational notice for reassessment was invalid, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAC could not stand and was quashed.
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.
