<?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>2022 (8) TMI 1586 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463039</link>
    <description>Reassessment under Section 148A(b) was impermissible where the notice disclosed escaped income below the statutory threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs and the proposed reopening was initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Court held that Section 149(1)(a) barred such reopening in these circumstances, and the order under Section 148A(d) could not be sustained. The reassessment initiation was therefore without jurisdiction and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2025 22:57:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=840321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 1586 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463039</link>
      <description>Reassessment under Section 148A(b) was impermissible where the notice disclosed escaped income below the statutory threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs and the proposed reopening was initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Court held that Section 149(1)(a) barred such reopening in these circumstances, and the order under Section 148A(d) could not be sustained. The reassessment initiation was therefore without jurisdiction and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>