https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329190 The court upheld the validity of the notice for re-opening the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10, dismissing the petitions challenging it. It found that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding share capital and share premium transactions lacking genuineness. The court emphasized the importance of proving the legitimacy of such transactions and clarified that if investments were found to be bogus, taxing the company could be warranted. The court affirmed the jurisdiction and procedural correctness of the Assessing Officer's actions in issuing the notice. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329190 The court upheld the validity of the notice for re-opening the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10, dismissing the petitions challenging it. It found that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding share capital and share premium transactions lacking genuineness. The court emphasized the importance of proving the legitimacy of such transactions and clarified that if investments were found to be bogus, taxing the company could be warranted. The court affirmed the jurisdiction and procedural correctness of the Assessing Officer's actions in issuing the notice. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329190