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...
The High Court held that a tax notice and assessment issued in the name of a company that had already merged into another entity were invalid. The ruling clarifies that once the tax authority is informed of a merger, proceedings must be issued in the name of the transferee company.
The Tribunal clarified that passing an order in the name of a non-existent entity is not a mere procedural defect. It held that participation in proceedings does not validate a void assessment.
The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is unsustainable. The reassessment and all consequential penalties were accordingly quashed.
Relying on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court rulings, the Tribunal ruled that sanction by an incorrect authority vitiates jurisdiction. The reassessment proceedings were set aside for non-compliance with Section 151.
The Tribunal examined whether Section 153A could be applied to the search year itself. It held that invoking Section 153A for the wrong assessment year was invalid, rendering the assessment void.
The issue was whether retaining both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) in the notice renders the penalty void. The Tribunal ruled that failure to strike off the inapplicable limb vitiates the proceedings. Penalties must be founded on precise allegations.
The Assessing Officer assumed that no return of income was filed while recording reasons under section 147. The Tribunal ruled that such factually incorrect reasons vitiate the assumption of jurisdiction itself.
The Tribunal examined whether revision under section 263 could survive when the show-cause notice was issued to an entity that had already ceased to exist due to amalgamation. It held that proceedings against a non-existent entity are void ab initio, rendering the revision order invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that a draft assessment order is the statutory trigger for DRP proceedings. Absence of a valid draft order against an existing entity vitiates the entire assessment.
The issue was whether reassessment can stand on an unsigned notice under Section 148. ITAT held that an unsigned notice confers no jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void ab initio.
