<?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>Goodwill depreciation, reassessment limitation, and invalid assessment name issues led ITAT to dismiss the Revenue&#039;s challenge.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98396</link>
    <description>ITAT held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation remained allowable where the claim concerned the same block of intangible asset already accepted in the foundational year, with no new goodwill or distinguishing change shown. It further held that reassessment was barred by limitation under the post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA framework because the section 148 notice was issued beyond the surviving period, making the reassessment invalid. The Tribunal also affirmed that assessment framed in the name of a company which had already converted into an LLP was a nullity for want of jurisdiction. Finally, it upheld deletion of the section 14A disallowance because the Assessing Officer invoked Rule 8D without first recording the mandatory dissatisfaction under section 14A(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:32 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Goodwill depreciation, reassessment limitation, and invalid assessment name issues led ITAT to dismiss the Revenue&#039;s challenge.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98396</link>
      <description>ITAT held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation remained allowable where the claim concerned the same block of intangible asset already accepted in the foundational year, with no new goodwill or distinguishing change shown. It further held that reassessment was barred by limitation under the post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA framework because the section 148 notice was issued beyond the surviving period, making the reassessment invalid. The Tribunal also affirmed that assessment framed in the name of a company which had already converted into an LLP was a nullity for want of jurisdiction. Finally, it upheld deletion of the section 14A disallowance because the Assessing Officer invoked Rule 8D without first recording the mandatory dissatisfaction under section 14A(2).</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:32 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>