https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62774 A subsisting special audit direction under section 142(2A), issued with competent approval and not set aside in writ proceedings, could not be reopened by appellate authorities on the factual satisfaction for invoking audit where no statutory appeal lay. As the audit remained operative, the time spent in completing it was required to be excluded while computing the limitation period for assessment. The related extensions of time were also treated as permissible because the statute did not require the extension request to be made before expiry of the earlier period, and the assessment was completed within the extended statutory period after the audit report was received. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62774 A subsisting special audit direction under section 142(2A), issued with competent approval and not set aside in writ proceedings, could not be reopened by appellate authorities on the factual satisfaction for invoking audit where no statutory appeal lay. As the audit remained operative, the time spent in completing it was required to be excluded while computing the limitation period for assessment. The related extensions of time were also treated as permissible because the statute did not require the extension request to be made before expiry of the earlier period, and the assessment was completed within the extended statutory period after the audit report was received. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62774