https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761048 The Madras HC held that assessment orders u/s 153A were not barred by limitation despite seized materials being handed over to the AO eight months after the prescribed 60-day period u/s 132(9A). The court found that section 132(9A) does not prescribe consequences for non-adherence to the time limit. Since materials were handed over on 20.11.2021, the 12-month limitation period ran until 31.03.2023, and assessment orders issued on 30-31.03.2023 were within time. The court upheld the validity of satisfaction notes u/s 153C and rejected challenges to the transfer order u/s 127. Additions u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE for unexplained investments were confirmed as legally valid. en-us Mon, 28 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Oct 2024 14:47:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761048 The Madras HC held that assessment orders u/s 153A were not barred by limitation despite seized materials being handed over to the AO eight months after the prescribed 60-day period u/s 132(9A). The court found that section 132(9A) does not prescribe consequences for non-adherence to the time limit. Since materials were handed over on 20.11.2021, the 12-month limitation period ran until 31.03.2023, and assessment orders issued on 30-31.03.2023 were within time. The court upheld the validity of satisfaction notes u/s 153C and rejected challenges to the transfer order u/s 127. Additions u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE for unexplained investments were confirmed as legally valid. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761048