https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244337 Reassessment for assessment year 2002-03 was invalid because it was reopened after four years on the same material already examined, without any new tangible material or failure of disclosure, so the notice was quashed. Disallowance under section 14A for assessment year 2007-08 was remanded for fresh consideration because Rule 8D was inapplicable and the factual character of the securities had to be examined. Higher depreciation on UPS was allowed, treating it consistently with computer hardware. The rural bad debt claim remained subject to the earlier remand to the Assessing Officer. Non-rural bad debt deduction was allowed following binding Supreme Court authority. Double taxation credit relief was declined, while loss on revaluation of investments was allowed. en-us Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244337 Reassessment for assessment year 2002-03 was invalid because it was reopened after four years on the same material already examined, without any new tangible material or failure of disclosure, so the notice was quashed. Disallowance under section 14A for assessment year 2007-08 was remanded for fresh consideration because Rule 8D was inapplicable and the factual character of the securities had to be examined. Higher depreciation on UPS was allowed, treating it consistently with computer hardware. The rural bad debt claim remained subject to the earlier remand to the Assessing Officer. Non-rural bad debt deduction was allowed following binding Supreme Court authority. Double taxation credit relief was declined, while loss on revaluation of investments was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244337