https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784155 Faceless assessment was not vitiated under s.144B or CBDT instructions because statutory notices were issued, the proposed disallowance was put to the taxpayer, and no specific prejudice (rejection of evidence/adjournment) was demonstrated; the assessment was upheld as valid. On deductibility of additional sugarcane price over FRP, the Tribunal held that, absent contemporaneous Government approval and cost-based justification, disallowance in principle could be warranted and any computation must follow the benchmark-differential method aligned with SC principles; however, for the relevant year the taxpayer produced unrebutted State Government approval of the final cane price satisfying s.36(1)(xvii), making further "profit-embedded" segregation inapplicable, so the disallowance was deleted. Set-off of brought-forward unabsorbed depreciation was directed to be allowed. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:27:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784155 Faceless assessment was not vitiated under s.144B or CBDT instructions because statutory notices were issued, the proposed disallowance was put to the taxpayer, and no specific prejudice (rejection of evidence/adjournment) was demonstrated; the assessment was upheld as valid. On deductibility of additional sugarcane price over FRP, the Tribunal held that, absent contemporaneous Government approval and cost-based justification, disallowance in principle could be warranted and any computation must follow the benchmark-differential method aligned with SC principles; however, for the relevant year the taxpayer produced unrebutted State Government approval of the final cane price satisfying s.36(1)(xvii), making further "profit-embedded" segregation inapplicable, so the disallowance was deleted. Set-off of brought-forward unabsorbed depreciation was directed to be allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784155