https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339931 Reopening beyond four years is invalid where the recorded reasons do not allege that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts, because the jurisdictional condition for such reassessment is not met. An assessment based substantially on a third-party statement cannot stand if effective cross-examination is denied, as this breaches natural justice. Share transactions supported by demat records and banking trails were not shown to be bogus or accommodation entries, so the gains could not be taxed as unexplained income or treated as business income. en-us Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339931 Reopening beyond four years is invalid where the recorded reasons do not allege that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts, because the jurisdictional condition for such reassessment is not met. An assessment based substantially on a third-party statement cannot stand if effective cross-examination is denied, as this breaches natural justice. Share transactions supported by demat records and banking trails were not shown to be bogus or accommodation entries, so the gains could not be taxed as unexplained income or treated as business income. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339931