<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (5) TMI 477 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327496</link>
    <description>Reassessment under the Income-tax Act is unavailable where the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all primary facts material to the deduction claim at the original scrutiny assessment. Here, the technical knowhow agreement, remittance permission, remittance details and deduction computation were already before the Assessing Officer; any excessive allowance therefore flowed from the Assessing Officer&#039;s omission or oversight, not from suppression by the assessee. On that basis, the reopening could not be sustained and the notice under Section 148, together with the reopening order, was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 01:22:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 477 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327496</link>
      <description>Reassessment under the Income-tax Act is unavailable where the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all primary facts material to the deduction claim at the original scrutiny assessment. Here, the technical knowhow agreement, remittance permission, remittance details and deduction computation were already before the Assessing Officer; any excessive allowance therefore flowed from the Assessing Officer&#039;s omission or oversight, not from suppression by the assessee. On that basis, the reopening could not be sustained and the notice under Section 148, together with the reopening order, was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327496</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>