<?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>Petition dismissed; s.149(1)(b) is jurisdictional fact for reopening escaped income after s.133A survey; s.148A valid</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91763</link>
    <description>HC dismissed the petition and upheld the reopening of assessment. The court held that s.149(1)(b) is a jurisdictional fact to be established before reopening for escaped income, and the impugned order rested on a reasonable belief formed after a s.133A survey. The petitioner may adduce ledger entries and material in the pending inquiry; disputed questions of fact (including whether Rs.1,50,50,000 related to advances or AY 2020-21 expenditure) preclude relief under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The HC found pre-conditions under s.148A(b) satisfied and no jurisdictional error in the exercise under s.148A(d). Article 226 cannot correct intra-jurisdictional errors of law/fact; petition dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:35:53 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:35:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=844857" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Petition dismissed; s.149(1)(b) is jurisdictional fact for reopening escaped income after s.133A survey; s.148A valid</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91763</link>
      <description>HC dismissed the petition and upheld the reopening of assessment. The court held that s.149(1)(b) is a jurisdictional fact to be established before reopening for escaped income, and the impugned order rested on a reasonable belief formed after a s.133A survey. The petitioner may adduce ledger entries and material in the pending inquiry; disputed questions of fact (including whether Rs.1,50,50,000 related to advances or AY 2020-21 expenditure) preclude relief under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The HC found pre-conditions under s.148A(b) satisfied and no jurisdictional error in the exercise under s.148A(d). Article 226 cannot correct intra-jurisdictional errors of law/fact; petition dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:35:53 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>