Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
