https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238475 Reassessment under section 147 was treated as valid where unabsorbed depreciation had already been exhausted in an earlier year and was wrongly considered available again, so the reopening was not a mere change of opinion. Under section 115JB, only depreciation or business loss actually available for carry forward can be reduced from book profit, and a second reduction of the same amount was disallowed. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustained because the assessment was ultimately on book profit, the disputed normal-computation adjustment did not by itself establish concealment, and a retrospective amendment could not alone justify penalty where the return matched the law then prevailing. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238475 Reassessment under section 147 was treated as valid where unabsorbed depreciation had already been exhausted in an earlier year and was wrongly considered available again, so the reopening was not a mere change of opinion. Under section 115JB, only depreciation or business loss actually available for carry forward can be reduced from book profit, and a second reduction of the same amount was disallowed. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustained because the assessment was ultimately on book profit, the disputed normal-computation adjustment did not by itself establish concealment, and a retrospective amendment could not alone justify penalty where the return matched the law then prevailing. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238475