Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
The HC invalidated the reassessment proceedings under Section 147, finding no tangible material indicating escaped income. The court determined that the Assessing Officer merely reconsidered the same material that had already undergone scrutiny during the original assessment, where Section 10A deductions were already reduced from the claimed amount. The reasons furnished for reopening failed to demonstrate any failure by the assessee to disclose true and full material facts-a prerequisite under Section 147. The court concluded that the reassessment constituted an impermissible change of opinion rather than discovery of new information, as no new material or undeclared income was identified that wasn't available during the original assessment process.
The HC invalidated the reassessment proceedings under Section 147, finding no tangible material indicating escaped income. The court determined that the Assessing Officer merely reconsidered the same material that had already undergone scrutiny during the original assessment, where Section 10A deductions were already reduced from the claimed amount. The reasons furnished for reopening failed to demonstrate any failure by the assessee to disclose true and full material facts-a prerequisite under Section 147. The court concluded that the reassessment constituted an impermissible change of opinion rather than discovery of new information, as no new material or undeclared income was identified that wasn't available during the original assessment process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.