Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of assessment u/s 153C and notices issued u/s 153B of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the starting point of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153B is the date when the seized books of account, documents, or assets were handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person. The previous notices issued to the four transferor companies were void and irrelevant. The limitation period commenced from the date when the incriminating material was handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, even if time was consumed in centralizing the material. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and notices issued by the Department.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of assessment u/s 153C and notices issued u/s 153B of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the starting point of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153B is the date when the seized books of account, documents, or assets were handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person. The previous notices issued to the four transferor companies were void and irrelevant. The limitation period commenced from the date when the incriminating material was handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, even if time was consumed in centralizing the material. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and notices issued by the Department.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
