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 Delhi held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on incorrect facts and incorrect recording of reasons is invalid and bad-in-law. Accordingly, reopening is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment passed on a non-existing entity [i.e. Union Bank of India] not sustainable since the same is amalgamated with Punjab National Bank and accordingly, Union Bank of India has lost its existence.
ITAT Raipur held that entire addition of transaction in the hands of assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained investment not tenable since the same needs to be allocated between joint beneficial owners. Thus, matter restore back to file of AO.
Petitioner stated that the said notice was issued pursuant to the information collected under section 135A of the Act, which pertains to the transactions entered by some other assessee (Manisha Jain) having a different PAN and having no relation with the petitioner.
Delhi High Court held that initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act against merged company is invalid as company is dissolved after Scheme of Arrangement. Thus, writ petition is allowed and notice/ order quashed.
Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceeding u/s. 148 initiated against non-existing company is not sustainable in law in as much as the department was already informed about the merger. Accordingly, notice quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the assessee is dead no valid assessment or reassessment can be made in the name of the deceased. Thus, notice issued u/s. 148 upon the deceased assessee who expired prior to issuance of notice is invalid.
Delhi High Court held that provision of section 292B doesn’t include passing of order u/s. 148 overlooking error apparent on the face of the record. Thus, order passed overlooking error is liable to be set aside.
Despite there was a valid disclosure made by assessee and AO being duly apprised of the factum of merger, AO made the draft assessment order in the name of a party which no longer existed on that date.
ITAT Mumbai held that notice for re-assessment proceeding under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued on a non-existing entity i.e. merged entity is void ab initio and hence is liable to be quashed.
