<?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>1999 (1) TMI 30 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16460</link>
    <description>Chapter XIV-B was treated as a special procedure limited to assessing undisclosed income found in search, operating in addition to, and not in substitution for, regular assessment. The Explanation inserted to section 158BA by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, was regarded as clarificatory and as removing doubt on that distinction. On that basis, income covered in regular assessment was held outside block assessment, and vice versa. The contention that notice for block assessment under section 158BC divested the Assessing Officer of jurisdiction to complete a regular assessment under section 143 was rejected, and the same reasoning was applied to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), which were held maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 30 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16460</link>
      <description>Chapter XIV-B was treated as a special procedure limited to assessing undisclosed income found in search, operating in addition to, and not in substitution for, regular assessment. The Explanation inserted to section 158BA by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, was regarded as clarificatory and as removing doubt on that distinction. On that basis, income covered in regular assessment was held outside block assessment, and vice versa. The contention that notice for block assessment under section 158BC divested the Assessing Officer of jurisdiction to complete a regular assessment under section 143 was rejected, and the same reasoning was applied to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), which were held maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>