<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (4) TMI 1679 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463276</link>
    <description>Faceless assessment proceedings including notices and steps under Section 148A are integral to the reassessment process and cannot be artificially separated; Section 148A operates as a condition precedent to reassessment and must be treated as part of the reassessment procedure, otherwise reassessments risk jurisdictional invalidity. The Central Government&#039;s faceless assessment scheme framed under the enabling provision must include the procedure under Section 148A; omitting it constricts the parent Act and renders the scheme nonconforming. The court disagreed with contrary bench reasoning equating electronic servicing with faceless assessment by the jurisdictional officer and directed consideration by a larger bench for authoritative resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2026 14:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=844723" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1679 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463276</link>
      <description>Faceless assessment proceedings including notices and steps under Section 148A are integral to the reassessment process and cannot be artificially separated; Section 148A operates as a condition precedent to reassessment and must be treated as part of the reassessment procedure, otherwise reassessments risk jurisdictional invalidity. The Central Government&#039;s faceless assessment scheme framed under the enabling provision must include the procedure under Section 148A; omitting it constricts the parent Act and renders the scheme nonconforming. The court disagreed with contrary bench reasoning equating electronic servicing with faceless assessment by the jurisdictional officer and directed consideration by a larger bench for authoritative resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>