https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244937 Reassessment notice was upheld because the original return had been accepted under section 143(1) without scrutiny, so the disputed depreciation claim on meters and capacitors had not been examined earlier and the bar of change of opinion did not arise. The record also showed that the reasons for reopening were recorded on 30 March 2005 by the same officer who issued the notice, and the later reference in those reasons did not prove that they were prepared after issuance. The challenge based on section 151 sanction was not examined for lack of factual foundation. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244937 Reassessment notice was upheld because the original return had been accepted under section 143(1) without scrutiny, so the disputed depreciation claim on meters and capacitors had not been examined earlier and the bar of change of opinion did not arise. The record also showed that the reasons for reopening were recorded on 30 March 2005 by the same officer who issued the notice, and the later reference in those reasons did not prove that they were prepared after issuance. The challenge based on section 151 sanction was not examined for lack of factual foundation. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244937