https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216036 The HC held the writ petition maintainable as the AO failed to decide the objection under section 148 separately before passing the reassessment order, warranting quashing of both the objection order and reassessment. The AO's non-application of section 32(2) during reassessment was improper; a wrong legal inference in the original assessment does not justify reopening under section 147. Regarding unabsorbed depreciation from A.Y. 1997-98, the Court ruled it is governed by the amended section 32(2) post-Finance Act 2001, allowing carry forward and set off without the eight-year restriction. The petition was allowed in favor of the assessee. en-us Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2025 16:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216036 The HC held the writ petition maintainable as the AO failed to decide the objection under section 148 separately before passing the reassessment order, warranting quashing of both the objection order and reassessment. The AO's non-application of section 32(2) during reassessment was improper; a wrong legal inference in the original assessment does not justify reopening under section 147. Regarding unabsorbed depreciation from A.Y. 1997-98, the Court ruled it is governed by the amended section 32(2) post-Finance Act 2001, allowing carry forward and set off without the eight-year restriction. The petition was allowed in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216036