https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777755 HC held the 2nd Respondent miscalculated limitation by starting from the date of the order u/s 143(3) instead of from the date of rejection of the rectification petition (9 Feb 2024). The revision under s.264 filed on 14 Jan 2025 was within the one-year period and therefore not time-barred. The impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent u/s 264 was quashed and set aside, and the matter remanded to the 2nd Respondent to decide the revision application on merits and in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 08:40:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777755 HC held the 2nd Respondent miscalculated limitation by starting from the date of the order u/s 143(3) instead of from the date of rejection of the rectification petition (9 Feb 2024). The revision under s.264 filed on 14 Jan 2025 was within the one-year period and therefore not time-barred. The impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent u/s 264 was quashed and set aside, and the matter remanded to the 2nd Respondent to decide the revision application on merits and in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777755