https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410115 The court upheld the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the order passed by the second respondent in ITA No.191/16-17. It found that the observations made against the petitioner were considered as information for reopening the assessment under Section 147, emphasizing that the petitioner could defend the proceedings as per directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The court clarified that disputed facts regarding the petitioner's directorship should be established before competent authorities. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise legal and factual grounds, including the point of limitation, before such authorities. Both writ petitions were disposed of with no costs. en-us Thu, 01 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Jul 2021 09:14:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410115 The court upheld the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the order passed by the second respondent in ITA No.191/16-17. It found that the observations made against the petitioner were considered as information for reopening the assessment under Section 147, emphasizing that the petitioner could defend the proceedings as per directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The court clarified that disputed facts regarding the petitioner's directorship should be established before competent authorities. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise legal and factual grounds, including the point of limitation, before such authorities. Both writ petitions were disposed of with no costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 01 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410115