https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92600 The HC held that the petitioner was not an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b) of the I.T. Act, and therefore the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue a draft assessment under s.144C(1). Consequently, the subsequent final assessment purportedly passed under s.143(3) read with s.144C(3) and s.144B, together with the demand notice and show-cause notices seeking penalty, were without jurisdiction and are quashed and set aside. The draft assessment dated 8 March 2025, the final assessment and demand notices dated 7 April 2025, and the penalty show-cause notices dated 7 April 2025 are annulled. Rule made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. en-us Wed, 17 Sep 2025 13:29:06 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 13:29:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92600 The HC held that the petitioner was not an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b) of the I.T. Act, and therefore the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue a draft assessment under s.144C(1). Consequently, the subsequent final assessment purportedly passed under s.143(3) read with s.144C(3) and s.144B, together with the demand notice and show-cause notices seeking penalty, were without jurisdiction and are quashed and set aside. The draft assessment dated 8 March 2025, the final assessment and demand notices dated 7 April 2025, and the penalty show-cause notices dated 7 April 2025 are annulled. Rule made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Highlights Income Tax Wed, 17 Sep 2025 13:29:06 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92600