<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (5) TMI 247 - ITAT DELHI-E (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65086</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147, affirming that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment, and the notice under section 148 was issued within the limitation period. However, a Third Member disagreed, finding the proceedings invalid due to non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and initiation for investigative purposes, which is impermissible under section 147. The Tribunal emphasized the applicability of Explanation 2(b) to section 147, while the Third Member highlighted procedural deficiencies, ultimately resulting in a divided decision on the reassessment&#039;s validity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 247 - ITAT DELHI-E (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65086</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147, affirming that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment, and the notice under section 148 was issued within the limitation period. However, a Third Member disagreed, finding the proceedings invalid due to non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and initiation for investigative purposes, which is impermissible under section 147. The Tribunal emphasized the applicability of Explanation 2(b) to section 147, while the Third Member highlighted procedural deficiencies, ultimately resulting in a divided decision on the reassessment&#039;s validity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>