Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The ITAT ruled against the revenue, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 after four years from the original assessment. The Tribunal determined that reopening was impermissible as the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, and the reassessment was merely based on an audit objection constituting a change of opinion. On merits, ITAT rejected the revenue's contention that changing land use from cinema hall to commercial complex amounted to conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade under section 45(2). The Tribunal clarified that entering into a development agreement does not automatically trigger section 45(2), particularly when the assessee consistently treated the property as a capital asset in its accounts and was not engaged in real estate business.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.