Appeal allows marketing payments as deductible business expenses under Sec.37; director pay retained; R&D deductible from certificate date under Sec.3...
Registration under s.12AB upheld; CIT(Exemptions) exceeded jurisdiction by deciding taxability instead of preliminary verification and registration di...
HC held that reassessment initiated after the four-year period was invalid insofar as it rested solely on a change of opinion and not on tangible material demonstrating escapement of income. The court observed that once the appellant had discharged the duty to disclose material facts and an assessment was completed under s.143(3) following notices and inquiries under ss.142 and 143(2), the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment absent concealment or false declaration. Finding no evidence of nondisclosure or concealment, the HC answered the legal question in favour of the appellant and set aside the impugned reassessment orders, obviating the need to adjudicate the s.80-IB/80HHC deduction issues.
HC held that reassessment initiated after the four-year period was invalid insofar as it rested solely on a change of opinion and not on tangible material demonstrating escapement of income. The court observed that once the appellant had discharged the duty to disclose material facts and an assessment was completed under s.143(3) following notices and inquiries under ss.142 and 143(2), the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment absent concealment or false declaration. Finding no evidence of nondisclosure or concealment, the HC answered the legal question in favour of the appellant and set aside the impugned reassessment orders, obviating the need to adjudicate the s.80-IB/80HHC deduction issues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
