https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11812 The court upheld the centralization order under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, declining to interfere under article 226 of the Constitution. The decision emphasized the evidentiary value of a statement by the taxpayer incriminating various companies, including the petitioner, in accommodation book entries. Despite the petitioner's arguments against centralization, the court found the statement's weightage significant in the assessment proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the order. The petitioner was granted an extension to file returns until March 31, 2003, with no costs awarded. en-us Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11812 The court upheld the centralization order under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, declining to interfere under article 226 of the Constitution. The decision emphasized the evidentiary value of a statement by the taxpayer incriminating various companies, including the petitioner, in accommodation book entries. Despite the petitioner's arguments against centralization, the court found the statement's weightage significant in the assessment proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the order. The petitioner was granted an extension to file returns until March 31, 2003, with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11812