https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404660 The Court quashed the impugned orders dated 1-11-2019 as they were beyond the limitation period under Section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the word "may" in Section 92CA(3A) should be interpreted as "shall," making the provision mandatory for timely completion of assessments. Despite the availability of alternate remedies, the Court found the writ petitions maintainable due to the mixed question of law and facts involved. Some petitions were closed, while the remaining were allowed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs. en-us Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 May 2021 15:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404660 The Court quashed the impugned orders dated 1-11-2019 as they were beyond the limitation period under Section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the word "may" in Section 92CA(3A) should be interpreted as "shall," making the provision mandatory for timely completion of assessments. Despite the availability of alternate remedies, the Court found the writ petitions maintainable due to the mixed question of law and facts involved. Some petitions were closed, while the remaining were allowed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404660