<?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>2026 (5) TMI 956 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791754</link>
    <description>In reassessment under the amended regime, the monetary threshold for invoking the extended limitation period under Section 149 is applied on the basis of the deemed full value of consideration where Section 50C operates. Because the immovable property transfer was sold below stamp valuation, the deemed consideration exceeded the statutory threshold, so the Section 148 notice and Section 148A(d) order were within jurisdiction. The court also held that alleged non-consideration of the taxpayer&#039;s reply did not by itself invalidate the proceedings once the limitation challenge failed, as no separate prejudice was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 09:09:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 956 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791754</link>
      <description>In reassessment under the amended regime, the monetary threshold for invoking the extended limitation period under Section 149 is applied on the basis of the deemed full value of consideration where Section 50C operates. Because the immovable property transfer was sold below stamp valuation, the deemed consideration exceeded the statutory threshold, so the Section 148 notice and Section 148A(d) order were within jurisdiction. The court also held that alleged non-consideration of the taxpayer&#039;s reply did not by itself invalidate the proceedings once the limitation challenge failed, as no separate prejudice was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791754</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>