https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268487 Reassessment based on the same material already examined in the original scrutiny assessment was invalid because no fresh tangible material supported a new belief; a mere change of opinion could not satisfy the statutory test for reopening. The assessee was also entitled to deduction under the industrial incentive provision because the undertaking had begun production within the relevant period, held valid small scale industrial status under the governing industrial law, and that status had not been withdrawn. Acceptance of the deduction in earlier years reinforced the eligibility position. The revenue challenge therefore failed, and the reopening and deduction objections were rejected. en-us Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268487 Reassessment based on the same material already examined in the original scrutiny assessment was invalid because no fresh tangible material supported a new belief; a mere change of opinion could not satisfy the statutory test for reopening. The assessee was also entitled to deduction under the industrial incentive provision because the undertaking had begun production within the relevant period, held valid small scale industrial status under the governing industrial law, and that status had not been withdrawn. Acceptance of the deduction in earlier years reinforced the eligibility position. The revenue challenge therefore failed, and the reopening and deduction objections were rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268487