https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289633 Reopening under section 34(1)(b) was held valid where escaped income, a bona fide belief of escapement, and statutory information were present; a prior assessment on a mistaken view did not bar reassessment, and the challenge to jurisdiction was treated as late. The receipts were also held to be dividends because they represented distributions out of accumulated profits. However, the amounts were not liable to be grossed up under section 16(2). The reference was therefore answered by sustaining the reassessment, characterising the receipts as dividends, and rejecting grossing up. en-us Sat, 10 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Aug 2020 14:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289633 Reopening under section 34(1)(b) was held valid where escaped income, a bona fide belief of escapement, and statutory information were present; a prior assessment on a mistaken view did not bar reassessment, and the challenge to jurisdiction was treated as late. The receipts were also held to be dividends because they represented distributions out of accumulated profits. However, the amounts were not liable to be grossed up under section 16(2). The reference was therefore answered by sustaining the reassessment, characterising the receipts as dividends, and rejecting grossing up. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 10 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289633