https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405161 Reopening of assessment was not invalid merely because the notice and reassessment were issued in the name of the amalgamating company after merger; the objection was rejected on the facts since the transferor company had filed the return and participated in the original assessment, and the merger had not been promptly brought to the assessing authority's notice. Reopening was also not barred as a mere change of opinion because the original assessment had not examined the specific depreciation claim on customer, dealer and vendor lists, and the assessee had not shown full and true disclosure of the material facts for that claim. The reassessment proceedings were therefore allowed to continue. en-us Tue, 02 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405161 Reopening of assessment was not invalid merely because the notice and reassessment were issued in the name of the amalgamating company after merger; the objection was rejected on the facts since the transferor company had filed the return and participated in the original assessment, and the merger had not been promptly brought to the assessing authority's notice. Reopening was also not barred as a mere change of opinion because the original assessment had not examined the specific depreciation claim on customer, dealer and vendor lists, and the assessee had not shown full and true disclosure of the material facts for that claim. The reassessment proceedings were therefore allowed to continue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 02 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405161