https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409650 Reassessment based on an intimation under section 143(1) was considered valid because there was no earlier scrutiny assessment, reopening occurred within four years, and recorded reasons showed a belief that income had escaped assessment. A joint development agreement was treated as conferring only permissive development rights, not a completed transfer in the relevant year, so capital gains could not be charged for that year. The exemption claim under sections 54 and 54F for two residential flats was held maintainable in principle, but factual eligibility required verification, so the matter was remitted for fresh examination after hearing the assessee. en-us Fri, 25 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:26:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409650 Reassessment based on an intimation under section 143(1) was considered valid because there was no earlier scrutiny assessment, reopening occurred within four years, and recorded reasons showed a belief that income had escaped assessment. A joint development agreement was treated as conferring only permissive development rights, not a completed transfer in the relevant year, so capital gains could not be charged for that year. The exemption claim under sections 54 and 54F for two residential flats was held maintainable in principle, but factual eligibility required verification, so the matter was remitted for fresh examination after hearing the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409650