<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (7) TMI 1244 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775176</link>
    <description>The SC dismissed a special leave petition challenging reassessment proceedings under section 147, where notice was issued under section 148A(b) alleging fictitious short-term capital loss claims. The HC had previously ruled that the notice failed to specify the basis for alleging the capital loss was fictitious, noting the petitioner invested based on public announcement and received tax-free dividends legitimately. However, the SC found no sufficient explanation for the 306-day delay in filing the petition and dismissed it solely on grounds of delay, without examining the merits of the reassessment challenge or the HC&#039;s findings regarding the inadequate notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=837446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1244 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775176</link>
      <description>The SC dismissed a special leave petition challenging reassessment proceedings under section 147, where notice was issued under section 148A(b) alleging fictitious short-term capital loss claims. The HC had previously ruled that the notice failed to specify the basis for alleging the capital loss was fictitious, noting the petitioner invested based on public announcement and received tax-free dividends legitimately. However, the SC found no sufficient explanation for the 306-day delay in filing the petition and dismissed it solely on grounds of delay, without examining the merits of the reassessment challenge or the HC&#039;s findings regarding the inadequate notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775176</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>