<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1979 (11) TMI 166 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70555</link>
    <description>Audit objections alone do not constitute valid &quot;information&quot; for reopening a completed assessment under section 147(b) where they merely express the audit party&#039;s own view on depreciation and deductibility of superannuation fund contributions. The text states that the revenue&#039;s reliance on the audit note was unsustainable because the governing Supreme Court authority on the meaning of &quot;information&quot; had displaced the contrary approach, and the audit observations did not reflect an independently established legal position. On that basis, the reopening was held invalid and the reassessment illegal, leaving the merits of the disallowance unexamined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:53:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (11) TMI 166 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70555</link>
      <description>Audit objections alone do not constitute valid &quot;information&quot; for reopening a completed assessment under section 147(b) where they merely express the audit party&#039;s own view on depreciation and deductibility of superannuation fund contributions. The text states that the revenue&#039;s reliance on the audit note was unsustainable because the governing Supreme Court authority on the meaning of &quot;information&quot; had displaced the contrary approach, and the audit observations did not reflect an independently established legal position. On that basis, the reopening was held invalid and the reassessment illegal, leaving the merits of the disallowance unexamined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>