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 held that reassessment proceedings initiated after scrutiny assessment were invalid because they relied on the same ma...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that participation by a legal heir does not validate notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a dece...
Income Tax : The Mumbai ITAT held that a mismatch in loan repayment figures arising from an unpresented cheque could not automatically justify ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Rajkot held that mere disallowance of expenditure during assessment proceedings does not automatically justify penalty un...
Income Tax : The Court held that reassessment proceedings must be initiated within the statutory time limit. It found the notice issued after t...
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.
The Mumbai ITAT held that a mismatch in loan repayment figures arising from an unpresented cheque could not automatically justify addition under Section 68. The Tribunal directed limited verification of subsequent payment before deciding the taxability issue conclusively.
The ITAT Rajkot held that mere disallowance of expenditure during assessment proceedings does not automatically justify penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings must be initiated within the statutory time limit. It found the notice issued after the deadline to be invalid.
The Court held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamating, non-existent entity is void. It ruled that system glitches cannot cure a fundamental jurisdictional defect.
ITAT ruled that jurisdiction to reopen assessment arises only when a valid notice is issued to a living person or legal representative. Since the notice was issued to a deceased assessee, the reassessment order was declared illegal.
Despite disputes over agricultural income additions, the Tribunal focused on the legality of the proceedings. It held that issuing a notice to a deceased taxpayer is a substantive illegality and cannot be treated as a curable procedural defect. The assessment was quashed.
The Bombay High Court quashed reassessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 after finding that the notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of an entity that had already merged and ceased to exist.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings initiated against a dead person are void in law. A valid notice must be issued to the legal heirs under Section 159 before initiating reassessment.
