https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277247 The reopening notice under Section 34 was held invalid because the statutory condition of escapement of income in consequence of definite information was not satisfied. The record showed that the alleged underassessment related only to the Madras branch, and the Tribunal had already found that the Income-tax Officer had that branch in mind when the original assessment was completed. As no other definite information was shown to have formed the basis of the notice, the jurisdictional requirement for action under Section 34 was absent. The notice was therefore not tenable in law, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 03 Feb 1944 00:00:00 +0630 Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:39:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277247 The reopening notice under Section 34 was held invalid because the statutory condition of escapement of income in consequence of definite information was not satisfied. The record showed that the alleged underassessment related only to the Madras branch, and the Tribunal had already found that the Income-tax Officer had that branch in mind when the original assessment was completed. As no other definite information was shown to have formed the basis of the notice, the jurisdictional requirement for action under Section 34 was absent. The notice was therefore not tenable in law, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 03 Feb 1944 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277247