https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190558 Under section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, reopening required the Income-tax Officer to possess definite information of a factual nature giving reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. A mere oversight, mistaken view, or omission in applying section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) was not such information, because it concerned a legal error rather than new factual material. The Nagpur HC therefore held that a prior mistake of law could not be treated as fresh information for reopening, and the notice issued under section 34(1)(b) was invalid and could not sustain the reassessment. en-us Wed, 29 Jun 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Feb 2017 16:36:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190558 Under section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, reopening required the Income-tax Officer to possess definite information of a factual nature giving reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. A mere oversight, mistaken view, or omission in applying section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) was not such information, because it concerned a legal error rather than new factual material. The Nagpur HC therefore held that a prior mistake of law could not be treated as fresh information for reopening, and the notice issued under section 34(1)(b) was invalid and could not sustain the reassessment. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Jun 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190558