<?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>2026 (6) TMI 1451 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794070</link>
    <description>Faceless assessment under the Income-tax Act was examined on limitation, draft assessment procedure, and writ maintainability. The assessment for AY 2020-21 was held within the extended time under section 153 because the Finance Act, 2022 amendment extended the period up to 30.09.2022 and the order was passed on 28.09.2022. An ordinary assessee, not shown to be an eligible assessee under section 144C(15)(b), could not insist on service of a draft assessment order under section 144B; the show-cause notice proposing variations was sufficient. No denial of hearing was shown, and the court noted that the assessment and rectification orders were fit for statutory appeal rather than writ interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +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=909075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 1451 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794070</link>
      <description>Faceless assessment under the Income-tax Act was examined on limitation, draft assessment procedure, and writ maintainability. The assessment for AY 2020-21 was held within the extended time under section 153 because the Finance Act, 2022 amendment extended the period up to 30.09.2022 and the order was passed on 28.09.2022. An ordinary assessee, not shown to be an eligible assessee under section 144C(15)(b), could not insist on service of a draft assessment order under section 144B; the show-cause notice proposing variations was sufficient. No denial of hearing was shown, and the court noted that the assessment and rectification orders were fit for statutory appeal rather than writ interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794070</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>