Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
AO reopened assessment beyond 4 year period without establishing assessee failed to truly disclose material facts. ITAT quashed reopening, holding AO merely changed opinion without tangible belief of escaped income. PCIT's revision u/s 263 to assess other income was rejected as show-cause didn't specify impugned order date, making action time-barred. Further, PCIT couldn't conclude assessment erroneous for non-consideration of information already possessed by AO while forming reopening belief. Assessee's appeal allowed by ITAT.
AO reopened assessment beyond 4 year period without establishing assessee failed to truly disclose material facts. ITAT quashed reopening, holding AO merely changed opinion without tangible belief of escaped income. PCIT's revision u/s 263 to assess other income was rejected as show-cause didn't specify impugned order date, making action time-barred. Further, PCIT couldn't conclude assessment erroneous for non-consideration of information already possessed by AO while forming reopening belief. Assessee's appeal allowed by ITAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
