Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 was challenged on the ground of mere change of opinion. The assessee had filed return claiming deduction u/s 80IC and furnished all relevant details during original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). The Assessing Officer, after examining the details, passed the assessment order accepting the return. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 was issued for reopening assessment on the ground that the undertaking availing deduction u/s 80IC was merged with the assessee company, rendering it ineligible for such deduction u/s 80IC(12) read with Section 80IA(12A). The High Court held that since all material facts were disclosed and examined during original assessment, reopening would amount to mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. Accordingly, the reopening notice u/s 148 was quashed.
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 was challenged on the ground of mere change of opinion. The assessee had filed return claiming deduction u/s 80IC and furnished all relevant details during original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). The Assessing Officer, after examining the details, passed the assessment order accepting the return. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 was issued for reopening assessment on the ground that the undertaking availing deduction u/s 80IC was merged with the assessee company, rendering it ineligible for such deduction u/s 80IC(12) read with Section 80IA(12A). The High Court held that since all material facts were disclosed and examined during original assessment, reopening would amount to mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. Accordingly, the reopening notice u/s 148 was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.