https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282408 Reassessment beyond four years after a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was held invalid because the assessee had already disclosed all material facts and the reopening was based on the same primary material, amounting to a mere change of opinion. The Tribunal also held that deduction for scientific research under section 35 could not be denied merely because the research was carried out through another person on the assessee's behalf, and upheld the allowance of deductions under section 35(1)(i), 35(1)(ii) and 35(1)(iv). The reopening was therefore bad in law and the disallowance was not sustainable. en-us Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Aug 2019 20:29:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282408 Reassessment beyond four years after a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was held invalid because the assessee had already disclosed all material facts and the reopening was based on the same primary material, amounting to a mere change of opinion. The Tribunal also held that deduction for scientific research under section 35 could not be denied merely because the research was carried out through another person on the assessee's behalf, and upheld the allowance of deductions under section 35(1)(i), 35(1)(ii) and 35(1)(iv). The reopening was therefore bad in law and the disallowance was not sustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282408