<?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 (9) TMI 1752 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276637</link>
    <description>Reopening of a scrutiny assessment beyond four years is barred where the Assessing Officer had already examined the deduction claim under section 10B and the assessee had disclosed all primary facts, including supporting certificates and related documents. On those facts, the notice merely sought to revisit an issue earlier considered, with no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts shown. The reopening was therefore invalid as a change of opinion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 07:19:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1752 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276637</link>
      <description>Reopening of a scrutiny assessment beyond four years is barred where the Assessing Officer had already examined the deduction claim under section 10B and the assessee had disclosed all primary facts, including supporting certificates and related documents. On those facts, the notice merely sought to revisit an issue earlier considered, with no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts shown. The reopening was therefore invalid as a change of opinion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>