Income Tax : Tribunal held that an assessment is void when the competent officer does not issue the mandatory notice. Jurisdiction cannot arise...
Income Tax : Understand the three core processes of Indian Income Tax: Rectification of mistakes (Sec 154), the four types of Assessment (Summa...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence ...
Income Tax : ITAT held that reassessment without issuing notice under Section 143(2) is invalid, even if return was filed late. The ruling emph...
Income Tax : Despite disputes over agricultural income additions, the Tribunal focused on the legality of the proceedings. It held that issuing...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings initiated against a dead person are void in law. A valid notice must be issued to...
Income Tax : While deleting the interest disallowance on merits, the Tribunal remanded the brought-forward loss issue for limited verification....
The Tribunal ruled that additions made on issues beyond limited scrutiny were without authority since proper conversion to complete scrutiny was not followed. The key takeaway is that violating CBDT instructions renders the entire assessment void.
The dispute involved whether the Varanasi Bench could adjudicate an appeal arising from a Kolkata-based assessment. The Tribunal held that filing before an incorrect Bench is fatal and parties must approach the jurisdictional Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that a notice dated 31.03.2021 but dispatched after 01.04.2021 is governed by the new reassessment regime. Failure to follow section 148A procedures rendered the entire reassessment void.
The Tribunal held that an assessment completed without issuing notice under section 143(2) is void ab initio. Non-participation by the assessee cannot cure this jurisdictional defect.
The assessment was quashed because the mandatory notice under section 143(2) was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction. The ruling confirms that jurisdiction must exist at the notice stage itself.
Hyderabad ITAT held that even a delayed return filed during assessment is valid, and absence of mandatory Section 143(2) notice renders the entire assessment void.
The tribunal examined whether an assessment under section 144 could survive without issuance of a notice under section 143(2). It held that non-issuance of the mandatory notice rendered the assessment void ab initio.
The Tribunal found that even a belated return filed in response to a Section 148 notice remains a valid return requiring a 143(2) notice. Because this mandatory notice was never issued, the reassessment order was declared illegal and set aside.
The ITAT ruled a reassessment under Section 147 invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to issue the mandatory Section 143(2) notice. compliance with notice requirements is crucial for valid reassessment.
Reassessment notice issued beyond statutory time limit under Section 148 was invalid; Tribunal quashed proceedings for A.Y. 2013-14, emphasizing procedural compliance.
