1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Highlights
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The ITAT held that the search concluded on 26.03.2021, and the restraint order passed under section 132(3) was invalid as it failed to specify reasons justifying non-seizure, rendering the subsequent Panchnama dated 24.05.2021 ineffective to extend the limitation period. The tribunal found no new material seized during the visit on 24.05.2021, which was merely an inspection, not a search. Consequently, the limitation period for assessment crystallized upon the conclusion of the search on 26.03.2021. Since the assessment year 2021-22 was not involved, clause (xi) of section 153B was inapplicable. The impugned assessment orders, therefore, were barred by limitation under section 153B. The ITAT allowed the assessee's contention and quashed the assessment orders as time-barred.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
