https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427096 The High Court set aside the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 for AY 2017-18, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The petitioner, a property business company penalized under Section 271D, successfully argued that the order failed to consider crucial aspects, including disclosure of sale consideration and TDS details. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to file an amended reply, and the Assessing Officer was directed to issue a new order within four weeks. The writ petition and application were disposed of, allowing for further proceedings by all parties. en-us Mon, 29 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Sep 2022 08:31:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427096 The High Court set aside the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 for AY 2017-18, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The petitioner, a property business company penalized under Section 271D, successfully argued that the order failed to consider crucial aspects, including disclosure of sale consideration and TDS details. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to file an amended reply, and the Assessing Officer was directed to issue a new order within four weeks. The writ petition and application were disposed of, allowing for further proceedings by all parties. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427096