<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (2) TMI 646 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766099</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding reopening of assessment under Section 147. The AO had originally examined share premium issues under Section 143(3) and determined Section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable. The AO later initiated reassessment on identical issues without fresh tangible material to justify change of opinion. The tribunal found AO failed to consider material facts including audited financial statements, queries, replies, and HC-approved amalgamation scheme. The reassessment was based on incorrect facts as shares were issued to shareholders of amalgamating company, not the company itself. CIT(A)&#039;s decision upholding that reopening was improper was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:10:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=798918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 646 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766099</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding reopening of assessment under Section 147. The AO had originally examined share premium issues under Section 143(3) and determined Section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable. The AO later initiated reassessment on identical issues without fresh tangible material to justify change of opinion. The tribunal found AO failed to consider material facts including audited financial statements, queries, replies, and HC-approved amalgamation scheme. The reassessment was based on incorrect facts as shares were issued to shareholders of amalgamating company, not the company itself. CIT(A)&#039;s decision upholding that reopening was improper was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>