https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327824 The Supreme Court held that the assessment order dated 01.09.1984 was not time-barred, excluding the period when the draft assessment was with the IAC from the limitation period. It clarified that conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the IAC did not eliminate the need for compliance with Section 144B unless the IAC actually exercised the powers of an ITO. The High Court of Gujarat's decision was overturned, allowing the Revenue's appeal, while the assessee's appeal against the Allahabad High Court's decision was dismissed. The Revenue was awarded costs in both appeals. en-us Mon, 02 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jun 2016 16:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327824 The Supreme Court held that the assessment order dated 01.09.1984 was not time-barred, excluding the period when the draft assessment was with the IAC from the limitation period. It clarified that conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the IAC did not eliminate the need for compliance with Section 144B unless the IAC actually exercised the powers of an ITO. The High Court of Gujarat's decision was overturned, allowing the Revenue's appeal, while the assessee's appeal against the Allahabad High Court's decision was dismissed. The Revenue was awarded costs in both appeals. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327824