<?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>2006 (5) TMI 112 - ITAT BANGALORE-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57827</link>
    <description>Limitation for a block assessment under section 158BE is computed from the conclusion of search as reflected in the last valid panchnama drawn under the warrant of authorisation. A later document does not extend limitation where the prohibitory order had not been validly extended and no lawful search or seizure took place on the later date. The recording of a statement on an intervening date does not change the statutory position, because the decisive factor remains the last valid panchnama evidencing completion of search. On the stated facts, the later panchnama was invalid and the assessment order was therefore time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:09:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 112 - ITAT BANGALORE-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57827</link>
      <description>Limitation for a block assessment under section 158BE is computed from the conclusion of search as reflected in the last valid panchnama drawn under the warrant of authorisation. A later document does not extend limitation where the prohibitory order had not been validly extended and no lawful search or seizure took place on the later date. The recording of a statement on an intervening date does not change the statutory position, because the decisive factor remains the last valid panchnama evidencing completion of search. On the stated facts, the later panchnama was invalid and the assessment order was therefore time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>