<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (3) TMI 1064 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340561</link>
    <description>Section 19 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 permits reassessment only when the prescribed authority, on the basis of information in its possession, forms its own satisfaction that turnover has escaped assessment. An audit objection may qualify as information only if it identifies an overlooked factual matter already reflected in the record, but reopening cannot rest on a mere change of opinion or external direction. The SC noted that the assessing authority was not independently satisfied and acted on the audit party&#039;s direction despite its own view on taxability. The reassessment was therefore held to be without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1064 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340561</link>
      <description>Section 19 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 permits reassessment only when the prescribed authority, on the basis of information in its possession, forms its own satisfaction that turnover has escaped assessment. An audit objection may qualify as information only if it identifies an overlooked factual matter already reflected in the record, but reopening cannot rest on a mere change of opinion or external direction. The SC noted that the assessing authority was not independently satisfied and acted on the audit party&#039;s direction despite its own view on taxability. The reassessment was therefore held to be without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>