https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6916 Reassessment under section 34(1)(a) was upheld because no return had been filed and the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed the lease consideration; the department learned the actual amount only later from the assessee's own communication. The amounts received under the so-called sub-lease agreements were treated as revenue receipts because, in substance, the arrangements were sub-leases: the assessee retained rights in the mining property, and the lump sum represented consolidated advance rent for use and enjoyment of the mine for a fixed term. The receipts were therefore taxable as income, not capital receipts. en-us Thu, 11 Aug 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Feb 2009 08:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6916 Reassessment under section 34(1)(a) was upheld because no return had been filed and the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed the lease consideration; the department learned the actual amount only later from the assessee's own communication. The amounts received under the so-called sub-lease agreements were treated as revenue receipts because, in substance, the arrangements were sub-leases: the assessee retained rights in the mining property, and the lump sum represented consolidated advance rent for use and enjoyment of the mine for a fixed term. The receipts were therefore taxable as income, not capital receipts. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Aug 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6916