https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789117 In reassessment proceedings, notice under section 143(2) was treated as mandatory, and its absence was regarded as a jurisdictional defect that vitiated the reassessment. An advance received under an agreement to sell immovable property was also held not taxable as income from other sources where there was no registered transfer, no completed sale within section 2(47), and no forfeiture of the advance. Applying the real income principle, the receipt remained a liability or contingent amount until it crystallised under the agreement or the Act. The reassessment and the addition were accordingly set aside. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789117 In reassessment proceedings, notice under section 143(2) was treated as mandatory, and its absence was regarded as a jurisdictional defect that vitiated the reassessment. An advance received under an agreement to sell immovable property was also held not taxable as income from other sources where there was no registered transfer, no completed sale within section 2(47), and no forfeiture of the advance. Applying the real income principle, the receipt remained a liability or contingent amount until it crystallised under the agreement or the Act. The reassessment and the addition were accordingly set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789117