https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36169 Reassessment under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as valid where the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts, and the later reopenings were also supportable on the alternative basis of information coming to notice. The balance of excess royalty, after excluding the income-tax and super-tax component, was held to be deductible as royalty proper, and the royalty on polished stones was also treated as revenue expenditure. An appeal against penal interest lay only when the assessee denied liability to be assessed at all, not for a stand-alone quantum dispute. No credit was available for excess royalty paid to the State, because it was not paid to the taxing authority as tax. en-us Mon, 30 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:22:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36169 Reassessment under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as valid where the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts, and the later reopenings were also supportable on the alternative basis of information coming to notice. The balance of excess royalty, after excluding the income-tax and super-tax component, was held to be deductible as royalty proper, and the royalty on polished stones was also treated as revenue expenditure. An appeal against penal interest lay only when the assessee denied liability to be assessed at all, not for a stand-alone quantum dispute. No credit was available for excess royalty paid to the State, because it was not paid to the taxing authority as tax. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36169