Capital Asset Conversion Requires Proven Business Stock Treatment; Paper Consideration in Spousal Flat Transfers Does Not Create Taxable Business Inco...
Human-probability test defeats political donation deduction where banking records mask accommodation-entry fund layering and evidence shows non-genuin...
Commercial property status protects capital-gains exemption when residential-house ownership limits are tested, while agricultural-land character gove...
Investigation deposits refunded after failed customs demands fall outside the statutory appellate pre-deposit interest regime and may attract compensa...
Resolution plan finality extinguishes unquantified operational-creditor claims and pending proceedings unless the approved plan expressly preserves th...
The High Court held that the impugned notices issued for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2014-15 u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act were valid and not time-barred. The court applied the extended period of 10 years for reassessment proceedings, as the amount of income escaping assessment exceeded Rs. 50 lakh. The 10-year period was computed from the Assessment Year 2018-19, considering the date when the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction after receiving the seized material on 23.10.2019. The court harmoniously interpreted Sections 153A and 153C, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vikram Sujit Kumar Bhatia, which held the second proviso to Section 153A as clarificatory. Consequently, the notices were upheld as valid within the extended 10-year limitation period.
The High Court held that the impugned notices issued for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2014-15 u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act were valid and not time-barred. The court applied the extended period of 10 years for reassessment proceedings, as the amount of income escaping assessment exceeded Rs. 50 lakh. The 10-year period was computed from the Assessment Year 2018-19, considering the date when the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction after receiving the seized material on 23.10.2019. The court harmoniously interpreted Sections 153A and 153C, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vikram Sujit Kumar Bhatia, which held the second proviso to Section 153A as clarificatory. Consequently, the notices were upheld as valid within the extended 10-year limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
