-
Ahmedabad ITAT Third Member Upholds Revenue’s Right to Quantify Additions Beyond Satisfaction Note Under Section 153C Based on Incriminating Material
Harpreet Singh Makhija Vs ITO
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38621 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
ITAT Lucknow Allows Deduction of Interest Expense U/S 57(iii) for Borrowed Funds Utilized to Earn Taxable Interest Income: Disallowance of Rs. 41.61 Lakhs Set Aside
Rishi Das Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-3
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38620 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · Section 57(iii)
-
Delhi ITAT Directs AO to Rectify Double Taxation Error on Surrendered Income Under Section 154; Relies on CBDT Circular and R. Natarajan Ruling
Chaudhary Pawan Singh Shiksha Samit Vs ITO
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38619 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Delhi ITAT Affirms Section 68 Addition for Unsecured Loan from Bogus Lender; Repayment Post-Reassessment Held Irrelevant
Radicool Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs ACIT
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38618 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
Madras High Court Invalidates Cognizance in Tax Evasion Prosecution for Failure to Grant Hearing under BNSS Section 223(1)
B. Siva Vs The DCIT
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38617 (HC-MADRAS) · Sections 277A, 278
-
Chennai ITAT Confirms Penalty for Concealment of Agricultural and Interest Income Despite Voluntary Disclosure by Assessee
Narayanasamy Vijaykumar Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38616 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Ahmedabad ITAT Clarifies Limitation Period for Reassessment Under Sections 148 and 149, Upholds Deletion of Bogus LTCG Addition Due to Proven Transaction Genuineness
Pinkiben Riddheshkumar Bhandari Vs The DCIT
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38615 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections 148, 149
-
Additions Based on Form 26AS Mismatch Unsustainable Where Audited Books Show Higher Income and Substantial Reconciliation
Honeywell Automation India Limited Vs DCIT
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38614 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Bombay High Court: Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) Invalid as Assessment Abated Due to Delayed Order Giving Effect; Quasi-Judicial Role of AO Recognized
Global Hospitality Licensing SARL Vs The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38613 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT Ahmedabad Orders Re-Examination of Unexplained Cash Deposit Addition under Section 69A Involving Co-operative Society Account: Full Verification Directed
Rameshbhai Mangalbhai Patel Vs Income Tax Officer
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38612 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 69A
-
Bombay High Court Mandates ITAT to Decide Jurisdictional Challenge on Faceless Assessment Procedure Non-Compliance Before Merits of Bogus Purchase Disallowance Highlights Jurisdictional Challenge on Faceless Assessment Procedure: The Bombay High Court emphasized that non-compliance with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act is not a mere procedural lapse but a jurisdictional defect, fundamentally affecting the validity of the assessment order. Assessee’s Specific Plea and Procedural History: The assessee, involved in painting and advertising, had specifically raised the issue of non-adherence to Section 144B both in its rectification application and before the appellate forums. The High Court noted that a previous coordinate bench had already allowed the assessee to raise all grounds, including those pertaining to merits, in the present appeal. Assessment and Disallowance Details: The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices under Section 142(1), which were duly responded to by the assessee. Subsequently, a show-cause notice under Section 144B(6) was served, proposing a disallowance of Rs. 22.80 lakh. The AO thereafter passed an order making an addition of Rs. 17.31 lakh under Section 69C, treating certain purchases as bogus. CIT(A) and ITAT Proceedings: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] partly favored the assessee, holding that while cash siphoning could not be ruled out, there was a possible inflation of purchases, a view that was subsequently upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). However, ITAT failed to properly examine the jurisdictional aspect arising from alleged procedural lapses under Section 144B. High Court’s Direction: The High Court held that ITAT was duty-bound to consider both the jurisdictional challenge and the merits of the disallowance. The Court set aside ITAT’s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on both issues. Detailed Analysis In the matter before the Bombay High Court, the central issue pertained to the alleged non-compliance with the faceless assessment procedures prescribed under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, engaged in painting and related advertising activities, had declared a total income of Rs. 1.36 crore in its return. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 142(1), which were duly replied to by the assessee. Subsequently, a show-cause notice under Section 144B(6) was issued, proposing a disallowance of Rs. 22.80 lakh. The final assessment order confirmed an addition of Rs. 17.31 lakh under Section 69C, attributing it to bogus purchases. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s claim, noting that while cash siphoning could not be entirely ruled out, there was a possibility of inflated purchases rather than outright bogus transactions. This order was maintained by the ITAT, which upheld the disallowance. However, the assessee had specifically raised the issue of procedural irregularities under Section 144B at every available forum, including a rectification application before the ITAT. The High Court made reference to the statutory mandate under Section 144B, which requires all assessments to be conducted in a faceless manner, following due process as prescribed in the section. The Court relied on the principle that any non-compliance with such mandatory procedures constitutes a jurisdictional error, thereby striking at the root of the assessment proceedings (ref. Section 144B, Income Tax Act, 1961; various case laws on jurisdictional errors, e.g., Pr. CIT v. Shree Gopal Housing & Plantation Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1233). The Revenue had contended that the assessee’s challenge was only procedural and did not warrant setting aside the assessment on jurisdictional grounds. However, the High Court disagreed, noting that the coordinate bench of the ITAT had already permitted the assessee to raise all grounds, including those relating to merits, in the present proceedings. Importantly, the High Court observed that ITAT was duty-bound to adjudicate the jurisdictional challenge regarding non-compliance with Section 144B, along with the merits of the disallowance under Section 69C. The failure to do so constituted a serious flaw in the appellate process, necessitating a remand for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the ITAT’s order and remitted the matter back to ITAT with clear instructions to decide both the jurisdictional issue and the merits afresh, after properly appreciating all documentary evidence regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Conclusion The Bombay High Court’s decision unequivocally establishes that compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 144B is jurisdictional in nature. Any assessment order passed in breach of these requirements is vulnerable to being set aside. The ITAT must consider such jurisdictional challenges at the threshold before proceeding to decide the merits of the case, including issues related to bogus purchases and disallowances. This actionable takeaway mandates that taxpayers and their representatives must diligently raise and pursue procedural lapses under Section 144B at every appellate stage. Implications for Other Assessees Arising Out of the Decision This decision specifically highlights the strategic importance for assessees to meticulously document and raise objections regarding procedural lapses under Section 144B during assessment proceedings and before appellate authorities. For taxpayers facing similar circumstances—where a faceless assessment has been conducted without strict adherence to the prescribed procedures—this judgment provides a clear precedent to contest the validity of such assessment orders on jurisdictional grounds. Assessees should ensure that all such grounds are not only raised at the earliest but are also substantiated through contemporaneous documentation and are pursued consistently through rectification applications and appeals. This approach can potentially result in the setting aside of adverse assessment orders and remand of the matter, thereby providing additional opportunities to present evidence on the merits and rectify any procedural injustices suffered during the assessment process.
Accost Media LLP Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38611 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 144B
-
Telangana High Court Clarifies: No Prior Hearing Needed for Intra-City Jurisdiction Transfers under Section 127(3) of the Income Tax Act
Agarwal Foundries Private limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38610 (HC-TELANGANA) · Section 127
-
Calcutta High Court Nullifies Hastily-Passed Income Tax Assessment Against PwC for Breach of Natural Justice Norms
Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38609 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 144B
-
Jodhpur ITAT Quashes LTCG Addition under Section 68: No Evidence of Sham, Natural Justice Violated, Presumptions on Penny Stocks Not Enough
Madan Lal Paliwal Vs ACIT
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38608 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
-
Karnataka High Court Affirms Addition of Unexplained Investment under Section 69 Based on Unretracted Section 132(4) Statement
Kudlur Ramaswamy Sathyanarayana Vs ACIT
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38607 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 132(4)
-
Delhi ITAT Nullifies CIT's Section 263 Revision for AY 2001-02 to 2005-06: Finds No Lack of Enquiry, Cites Overreach by Higher Tax Authorities in NIIT Ltd. Case
NIIT Ltd Vs CIT
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38606 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 263
-
Delhi ITAT Clarifies Capital Gains Holding Period: Allotment Date to be Considered for Immovable Property, Not Sale Deed Execution Date
Mohit saraf Vs ACIT
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38605 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Mumbai ITAT Quashes Addition of Cash Loan as Unexplained Credit; Clarifies Section 269SS Violation Attracts Only Penalty, Not Income Tax Addition
Ulka Chandrashekhar Nair Vs Income Tax Officer
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38604 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 269SS, 271D
-
Mumbai ITAT Orders Immediate Renewal of u/s 12AB Registration After Finding CIT(E)'s Reason for Rejection Factually Baseless
Pushpaben Kishorechandra Ajmera Gosaliya Jain Derasar Vs ITO
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38603 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 12AB
-
Delhi ITAT Confirms: Loan Not Deemed Dividend as Assessee’s Shareholding Falls Below Section 2(22)(e) Threshold
Mohan Export (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38602 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 2(22)(e)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.