https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61768 Reassessment under section 147(b) was upheld because the material fact concerning the relationship between the selling agent and an interested shareholder had not been disclosed at the original assessment, so the reopening was not a mere change of opinion. Commission paid to an independent sole selling agent was also held outside section 40(c) because it represented business service expenditure, not remuneration of the kind targeted by that provision, and there was no employer-employee relationship or equivalent control. As a result, the department's challenge failed and the relief granted to the assessee was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 26 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:00:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61768 Reassessment under section 147(b) was upheld because the material fact concerning the relationship between the selling agent and an interested shareholder had not been disclosed at the original assessment, so the reopening was not a mere change of opinion. Commission paid to an independent sole selling agent was also held outside section 40(c) because it represented business service expenditure, not remuneration of the kind targeted by that provision, and there was no employer-employee relationship or equivalent control. As a result, the department's challenge failed and the relief granted to the assessee was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61768