<?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>Faceless assessment limits and draft-order requirements clarified; writ challenge rejected, with merits left to statutory appeals.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101198</link>
    <description>Limitation for assessment under the amended timeline was upheld: the substituted second proviso to section 153(1) extended the time for passing the assessment order for AY 2020-21 to 30.09.2022, so an order dated 28.09.2022 was within time. In faceless assessment, service of a draft assessment order was held necessary only for an eligible assessee; for an ordinary assessee, disclosure through a show-cause notice satisfied the statute. The objection of denial of personal hearing failed because the notice permitted a video-conference hearing and no request was made. Merits-based objections involving disputed facts were left to the statutory appellate forum, and the writ petitions were dismissed with protection on limitation for appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 09:28:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 09:28:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Faceless assessment limits and draft-order requirements clarified; writ challenge rejected, with merits left to statutory appeals.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101198</link>
      <description>Limitation for assessment under the amended timeline was upheld: the substituted second proviso to section 153(1) extended the time for passing the assessment order for AY 2020-21 to 30.09.2022, so an order dated 28.09.2022 was within time. In faceless assessment, service of a draft assessment order was held necessary only for an eligible assessee; for an ordinary assessee, disclosure through a show-cause notice satisfied the statute. The objection of denial of personal hearing failed because the notice permitted a video-conference hearing and no request was made. Merits-based objections involving disputed facts were left to the statutory appellate forum, and the writ petitions were dismissed with protection on limitation for appeals.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 09:28:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>