https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36889 Reassessment under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was held permissible where the assessee had disclosed commission payments as made for services rendered, but the later material showed that no such services were in fact rendered. The court distinguished between a full and true disclosure of primary facts, which merely leaves inferences to the assessing officer, and an untrue disclosure of a basic fact, which can justify reopening. Because the disclosure itself was false, the case was not treated as a mere change of opinion, and the prior assessments did not bar reopening. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:10:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36889 Reassessment under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was held permissible where the assessee had disclosed commission payments as made for services rendered, but the later material showed that no such services were in fact rendered. The court distinguished between a full and true disclosure of primary facts, which merely leaves inferences to the assessing officer, and an untrue disclosure of a basic fact, which can justify reopening. Because the disclosure itself was false, the case was not treated as a mere change of opinion, and the prior assessments did not bar reopening. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36889