<?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>1998 (4) TMI 153 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60636</link>
    <description>In a Chapter XIV-B search assessment, income for previous years whose returns were filed but assessments were still pending had to be brought into the block computation under section 158BB(1); excluding those years and completing them separately under the regular provisions would cause impermissible duplication, so the exclusion was contrary to the block assessment scheme. On section 158BG approval, the absence of a pre-approval hearing did not invalidate the sanction, and the record did not show non-application of mind by the Commissioner. The block assessment was therefore set aside for fresh adjudication, while the challenge to the prior approval failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 153 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60636</link>
      <description>In a Chapter XIV-B search assessment, income for previous years whose returns were filed but assessments were still pending had to be brought into the block computation under section 158BB(1); excluding those years and completing them separately under the regular provisions would cause impermissible duplication, so the exclusion was contrary to the block assessment scheme. On section 158BG approval, the absence of a pre-approval hearing did not invalidate the sanction, and the record did not show non-application of mind by the Commissioner. The block assessment was therefore set aside for fresh adjudication, while the challenge to the prior approval failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>