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 : Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F in respect of the entire value of all 50 residential flats receivable under t...
Income Tax : The ITAT Kolkata held that the Assessing Officer could not examine issues beyond the limited scrutiny mandate without following CB...
Income Tax : Assessments arising from searches conducted after 01.04.2021 must strictly comply with the reassessment framework under sections 1...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice issued before filing of return satisfies Section 143(2) requirements. The Tribunal held such notice...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence ...
The issue was whether reassessment is valid when reasons for reopening are not placed on record. The Tribunal held that non-recording of reasons under Section 148(2) vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void.
The Tribunal clarified that section 292BB only cures defects in service of notice, not complete absence of a valid jurisdictional notice. Participation in proceedings cannot validate an assessment initiated by an incompetent authority.
The issue was whether reassessment remains valid when no Section 143(2) notice is issued after a return is filed in response to Section 148. ITAT held such reassessment void, confirming that Section 143(2) is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
Since the statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, the assessment collapsed. The ruling affirms that valid notice by the competent authority is a sine qua non.
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.
