https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781706 The HC upheld the ITAT's factual finding that the reassessment order was passed after 31 Mar 2015 and thus barred by limitation under s.153(2) of the IT Act. The court found no perversity in ITAT's application of mind, noting the typographical date error did not alter the material timing and that the AO's order was effectively dated in April 2015. In absence of any rectification proceedings under s.154, the HC declined to interfere with the ITAT order and found no substantial question of law. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781706 The HC upheld the ITAT's factual finding that the reassessment order was passed after 31 Mar 2015 and thus barred by limitation under s.153(2) of the IT Act. The court found no perversity in ITAT's application of mind, noting the typographical date error did not alter the material timing and that the AO's order was effectively dated in April 2015. In absence of any rectification proceedings under s.154, the HC declined to interfere with the ITAT order and found no substantial question of law. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781706