https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49392 Reassessment notice under section 34 was not invalid for want of Central Board of Revenue sanction where escaped income was below one lakh rupees; the sanction contemplated by clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(1) was confined to cases falling within clause (ii), and otherwise the relevant sanction was that of the Commissioner. The second proviso to section 34(3) also applied because the notice was issued to give effect to a direction in a higher income-tax authority's order, and that proviso overrode the limitation objection under section 34. The High Court's contrary view was held incorrect. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49392 Reassessment notice under section 34 was not invalid for want of Central Board of Revenue sanction where escaped income was below one lakh rupees; the sanction contemplated by clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(1) was confined to cases falling within clause (ii), and otherwise the relevant sanction was that of the Commissioner. The second proviso to section 34(3) also applied because the notice was issued to give effect to a direction in a higher income-tax authority's order, and that proviso overrode the limitation objection under section 34. The High Court's contrary view was held incorrect. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49392