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...
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.
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.
