<?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>2011 (4) TMI 1323 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175686</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal for reassessment, holding that initiating reassessment proceedings solely based on the Valuation Officer&#039;s report without rejecting the books of accounts is not permissible under Section 147 of the IT Act. The Court emphasized that the Valuation Officer&#039;s report under Section 142-A must be addressed before proceeding with reassessment. As the books of accounts were not rejected before appointing the Valuation Officer, the reassessment notice was deemed to lack jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting that the legal question raised did not apply in this scenario.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2015 16:22:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1323 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175686</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal for reassessment, holding that initiating reassessment proceedings solely based on the Valuation Officer&#039;s report without rejecting the books of accounts is not permissible under Section 147 of the IT Act. The Court emphasized that the Valuation Officer&#039;s report under Section 142-A must be addressed before proceeding with reassessment. As the books of accounts were not rejected before appointing the Valuation Officer, the reassessment notice was deemed to lack jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting that the legal question raised did not apply in this scenario.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>