Income Tax : Section 292B is considered as a protection to the Income tax authorities for most of short comings in proceedings due to technical...
Income Tax : Our focus of the article will be on section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) which has been introduced with effect from 01.0...
Income Tax : It is noticed that the department has lost the revenue in number of cases mainly on account of fatal mistake made by the AO in iss...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamated bank after it had ceased to exist is void ab ini...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that consolidated approvals granted without application of mind under Section 153D were invalid. Consequently, the...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT held that an order labelled as a draft assessment order loses its character if accompanied by demand notices and penal...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that unsigned reasons recorded for reopening assessment constituted a jurisdictional defect that invalidated t...
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft under Section 144C.
ITAT Bangalore held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamated bank after it had ceased to exist is void ab initio. The Tribunal ruled that once the Assessing Officer was informed of the amalgamation, the defect could not be cured under Section 292B.
ITAT Delhi held that consolidated approvals granted without application of mind under Section 153D were invalid. Consequently, the related assessment orders were declared void and quashed.
Mumbai ITAT held that an order labelled as a draft assessment order loses its character if accompanied by demand notices and penalty initiation. Failure to comply with Section 144C renders the assessment void and without jurisdiction.
The Delhi ITAT held that unsigned reasons recorded for reopening assessment constituted a jurisdictional defect that invalidated the reassessment proceedings. The defect was not curable under Section 292B of the Act.
The High Court held that issuing a demand notice along with a draft assessment order violated the mandatory procedure under Section 144C. Since the assessment had effectively been completed at the draft stage, the reassessment orders were quashed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment beyond three years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the alleged escaped income was represented by an asset, expenditure, or book entry as required under Section 149(1)(b). The ruling underscores the mandatory jurisdictional conditions for reopening assessments.
The Gujarat High Court set aside a Section 148 notice after finding no direct or indirect connection between the assessee and the seized third-party documents. The Court held that reassessment based on vague material and assumptions was unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings initiated after scrutiny assessment were invalid because they relied on the same material already examined earlier. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment cannot be used to review a previously accepted claim.
The Tribunal ruled that participation by a legal heir does not validate notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a deceased assessee. Proceedings must be initiated strictly under Section 159 against legal representatives.
