https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328781 The court held that the reopening of the assessment was unjustified as the Assessing Officer had already considered the issues of bad debt provision and double claim of unabsorbed depreciation during the original assessment. The court found that the petitioner had disclosed all necessary material facts, and there was no failure on their part. Consequently, the notice dated 31.03.2015 was quashed, and the petition was disposed of accordingly. en-us Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:57:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328781 The court held that the reopening of the assessment was unjustified as the Assessing Officer had already considered the issues of bad debt provision and double claim of unabsorbed depreciation during the original assessment. The court found that the petitioner had disclosed all necessary material facts, and there was no failure on their part. Consequently, the notice dated 31.03.2015 was quashed, and the petition was disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328781