<?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>2012 (10) TMI 426 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217488</link>
    <description>A notice under section 158BC that allowed less than the mandatory minimum time was void ab initio, because the statutory time limit is a jurisdictional precondition for block assessment; the assessment based on such notice was therefore annulled. The defect could not be cured by section 292B, since a notice that fails to comply with the minimum period is not a mere irregularity, and later grant of further time or waiver by the assessee did not validate it. On annulment, section 240 governed refund consequences, and it did not bar refund in the facts stated. No direction for fresh assessment was warranted because the statutory mandate had been breached.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 426 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217488</link>
      <description>A notice under section 158BC that allowed less than the mandatory minimum time was void ab initio, because the statutory time limit is a jurisdictional precondition for block assessment; the assessment based on such notice was therefore annulled. The defect could not be cured by section 292B, since a notice that fails to comply with the minimum period is not a mere irregularity, and later grant of further time or waiver by the assessee did not validate it. On annulment, section 240 governed refund consequences, and it did not bar refund in the facts stated. No direction for fresh assessment was warranted because the statutory mandate had been breached.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>