https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152138 The Supreme Court held that the amended scheme of section 34, together with the 1953 and 1959 validating amendments, operated retrospectively to preserve notices and assessments within their terms, so a notice issued under section 34(1)(a) was not barred merely because the earlier limitation period had expired. It also upheld the second proviso to section 34(3) as amended in 1953, finding that persons proceeded against on the basis of a recorded finding or direction formed a distinct class with a rational nexus to preventing tax evasion and giving effect to appellate findings. The notices and consequent proceedings were therefore sustained. en-us Wed, 12 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Oct 2016 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152138 The Supreme Court held that the amended scheme of section 34, together with the 1953 and 1959 validating amendments, operated retrospectively to preserve notices and assessments within their terms, so a notice issued under section 34(1)(a) was not barred merely because the earlier limitation period had expired. It also upheld the second proviso to section 34(3) as amended in 1953, finding that persons proceeded against on the basis of a recorded finding or direction formed a distinct class with a rational nexus to preventing tax evasion and giving effect to appellate findings. The notices and consequent proceedings were therefore sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152138