<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1983 (5) TMI 19 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28331</link>
    <description>A statutory Valuation Officer&#039;s report under the Wealth-tax Act can constitute &quot;information&quot; for reopening purposes when it provides new factual material not previously before the assessing authority. The Court held that such a report is not excluded merely because it contains expert opinion, since valuation is not an exact science and the statutory meaning of information includes external factual material. Concerns about repeated reopening could not narrow that meaning, and authorities on mere change of opinion were held inapplicable. The reassessment notices were therefore validly issued, and no jurisdictional or manifest legal error justified writ interference under Article 226.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:45:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (5) TMI 19 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28331</link>
      <description>A statutory Valuation Officer&#039;s report under the Wealth-tax Act can constitute &quot;information&quot; for reopening purposes when it provides new factual material not previously before the assessing authority. The Court held that such a report is not excluded merely because it contains expert opinion, since valuation is not an exact science and the statutory meaning of information includes external factual material. Concerns about repeated reopening could not narrow that meaning, and authorities on mere change of opinion were held inapplicable. The reassessment notices were therefore validly issued, and no jurisdictional or manifest legal error justified writ interference under Article 226.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28331</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>