https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251546 Processing a return under section 143(1) is not a substantive assessment, so reopening is permissible where income escaped assessment through omission or oversight and the Assessing Officer relied on material already on record; the reassessment was therefore upheld and not treated as a mere change of opinion. On treaty interpretation, Article 14 permitted capital gains to be taxed by each Contracting State according to its domestic law, so a resident assessee's gains were taxable in India rather than only in the United Kingdom; that contention was rejected. The Revenue's stand on both reassessment and taxability was sustained. en-us Tue, 22 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2015 17:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251546 Processing a return under section 143(1) is not a substantive assessment, so reopening is permissible where income escaped assessment through omission or oversight and the Assessing Officer relied on material already on record; the reassessment was therefore upheld and not treated as a mere change of opinion. On treaty interpretation, Article 14 permitted capital gains to be taxed by each Contracting State according to its domestic law, so a resident assessee's gains were taxable in India rather than only in the United Kingdom; that contention was rejected. The Revenue's stand on both reassessment and taxability was sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251546