https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6168 A Supreme Court note explains that reassessment under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 may be validly reopened where a later Privy Council decision constitutes definite information on the true state of title, especially when the assessee had not disclosed all material facts. The reopening was sustained and extended to the whole escaped income for the year. It also states that a lump sum paid under a compromise to secure or perfect title to a mill is capital expenditure, even if the arrangement incidentally affects profits. The payment was therefore not apportionable as revenue expenditure and was not deductible against income. en-us Thu, 31 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Mar 2025 13:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6168 A Supreme Court note explains that reassessment under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 may be validly reopened where a later Privy Council decision constitutes definite information on the true state of title, especially when the assessee had not disclosed all material facts. The reopening was sustained and extended to the whole escaped income for the year. It also states that a lump sum paid under a compromise to secure or perfect title to a mill is capital expenditure, even if the arrangement incidentally affects profits. The payment was therefore not apportionable as revenue expenditure and was not deductible against income. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6168