https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344564 The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the notice to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2005-06. The Court found discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and concluded that the DVO's report, which formed the basis for reopening, covered a different period than requested, rendering it invalid. Due to the fundamental fallacy in the DVO's report and the Assessing Officer's reasoning, the Court held that the notice lacked validity and was therefore set aside. en-us Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:39:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344564 The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the notice to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2005-06. The Court found discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and concluded that the DVO's report, which formed the basis for reopening, covered a different period than requested, rendering it invalid. Due to the fundamental fallacy in the DVO's report and the Assessing Officer's reasoning, the Court held that the notice lacked validity and was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344564