https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37949 Under the amended section 34(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the power to issue a reopening notice was treated as surviving even after the earlier eight-year limit, so the revenue's right to reopen had not become barred by 1 April 1962. On that basis, section 297(2)(d)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied, and a notice under section 148 could validly be issued for escaped income relating to the relevant assessment year. The Supreme Court decision in J. P. Jani was distinguished because it had not considered the effect of section 34(4). en-us Mon, 08 May 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:43:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37949 Under the amended section 34(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the power to issue a reopening notice was treated as surviving even after the earlier eight-year limit, so the revenue's right to reopen had not become barred by 1 April 1962. On that basis, section 297(2)(d)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied, and a notice under section 148 could validly be issued for escaped income relating to the relevant assessment year. The Supreme Court decision in J. P. Jani was distinguished because it had not considered the effect of section 34(4). Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 May 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37949