https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190549 Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed to require definite information, meaning material of a definite nature rather than mere suspicion, and to permit reopening only where the Income-tax Officer formed an honest and reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment. The Court held that certainty or direct proof was not necessary and that circumstantial material could be sufficient if it supported that belief. On the facts, falsification in the books, distrust of the explanation for prior records, and similar profit rates across years provided definite information, and the reopening was therefore valid. en-us Thu, 08 Feb 1945 00:00:00 +0630 Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:43:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190549 Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed to require definite information, meaning material of a definite nature rather than mere suspicion, and to permit reopening only where the Income-tax Officer formed an honest and reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment. The Court held that certainty or direct proof was not necessary and that circumstantial material could be sufficient if it supported that belief. On the facts, falsification in the books, distrust of the explanation for prior records, and similar profit rates across years provided definite information, and the reopening was therefore valid. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 08 Feb 1945 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190549