https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308067 The court allowed the petition, quashing the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. The court held that the reasons for reopening the assessment amounted to a change of opinion, which was not a valid ground for reopening. The dispute arose from the treatment of refunded deposits as a capital payment instead of expenditure, leading to an alleged escapement of income. The court found this to be a clear case of change of opinion, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner and concluding the legal proceedings with no order as to costs. en-us Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308067 The court allowed the petition, quashing the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. The court held that the reasons for reopening the assessment amounted to a change of opinion, which was not a valid ground for reopening. The dispute arose from the treatment of refunded deposits as a capital payment instead of expenditure, leading to an alleged escapement of income. The court found this to be a clear case of change of opinion, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner and concluding the legal proceedings with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308067