https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236653 In block assessment proceedings, satisfaction for action against the other person under section 158BD was treated as met on the peculiar facts where the seized agreements related to both parties and the assessee had been confronted with, and admitted, the transactions; the objection based only on delay in issuing notice was rejected because no fixed time limit was prescribed. The Tribunal also held that the assessee's explanation for the payments and investment needed verification of the books and related records, so the favourable finding on merits was set aside and remitted for fresh examination. On quantum, proposed purchase values could not be mechanically treated as undisclosed income; only actual expenditure mattered, and the matter was sent back for fresh determination. en-us Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236653 In block assessment proceedings, satisfaction for action against the other person under section 158BD was treated as met on the peculiar facts where the seized agreements related to both parties and the assessee had been confronted with, and admitted, the transactions; the objection based only on delay in issuing notice was rejected because no fixed time limit was prescribed. The Tribunal also held that the assessee's explanation for the payments and investment needed verification of the books and related records, so the favourable finding on merits was set aside and remitted for fresh examination. On quantum, proposed purchase values could not be mechanically treated as undisclosed income; only actual expenditure mattered, and the matter was sent back for fresh determination. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236653