https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443699 The court examined the validity of reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the need for tangible material rather than suspicion. It found that no "interest on capital" or "remuneration" was received from the partnership firm, rendering the reopening invalid. The court also determined that the partnership deeds were valid and correctly reflected the agreement among partners. Additionally, it concluded that the alleged escapement of income due to the sale of immovable property lacked substantial evidence, leading to the quashing of the notices under Section 148. en-us Tue, 12 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Sep 2023 07:42:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443699 The court examined the validity of reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the need for tangible material rather than suspicion. It found that no "interest on capital" or "remuneration" was received from the partnership firm, rendering the reopening invalid. The court also determined that the partnership deeds were valid and correctly reflected the agreement among partners. Additionally, it concluded that the alleged escapement of income due to the sale of immovable property lacked substantial evidence, leading to the quashing of the notices under Section 148. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443699