https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177722 The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the decision to quash the reassessment under section 147. The dispute centered on treating intangible asset interest charges as revenue expenditure for the HVDC Project. The tribunal found the reopening lacked a valid reason and constituted a change of opinion, contrary to legal principles. Relying on precedents like CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., the tribunal affirmed the annulment of the reassessment order, emphasizing the absence of a new material basis for the reopening. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:28:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177722 The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the decision to quash the reassessment under section 147. The dispute centered on treating intangible asset interest charges as revenue expenditure for the HVDC Project. The tribunal found the reopening lacked a valid reason and constituted a change of opinion, contrary to legal principles. Relying on precedents like CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., the tribunal affirmed the annulment of the reassessment order, emphasizing the absence of a new material basis for the reopening. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177722