https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80396 The High Court held that the reopening proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked "reasons to believe" supported by fresh tangible material. The AO's basis for reopening did not show any failure by the assessee to fully disclose material facts. The assessment order u/s 143(3) only addressed excess depreciation claimed on a specific issue, indicating that the AO had already considered and made adjustments on this matter. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 was deemed untenable and was quashed in favor of the assessee. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2024 07:08:12 +0530 Tue, 13 Aug 2024 07:08:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80396 The High Court held that the reopening proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked "reasons to believe" supported by fresh tangible material. The AO's basis for reopening did not show any failure by the assessee to fully disclose material facts. The assessment order u/s 143(3) only addressed excess depreciation claimed on a specific issue, indicating that the AO had already considered and made adjustments on this matter. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 was deemed untenable and was quashed in favor of the assessee. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 13 Aug 2024 07:08:12 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80396