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 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.
ITAT Pune struck down a ₹34.28 lakh penalty issued after the company had merged, citing substantive illegality. Penalty orders must be issued in the name of a legally existing entity.
The issue was whether reassessment could survive when the mandatory section 148 no-tice was sent to an old address. The Tribunal held that improper service vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the entire reassessment void.
