<?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>Reassessment Under Section 147 Barred After Four Years When All Material Facts Were Initially Disclosed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86324</link>
    <description>The ITAT ruled against the revenue, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 after four years from the original assessment. The Tribunal determined that reopening was impermissible as the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, and the reassessment was merely based on an audit objection constituting a change of opinion. On merits, ITAT rejected the revenue&#039;s contention that changing land use from cinema hall to commercial complex amounted to conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade under section 45(2). The Tribunal clarified that entering into a development agreement does not automatically trigger section 45(2), particularly when the assessee consistently treated the property as a capital asset in its accounts and was not engaged in real estate business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 08:41:19 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 08:41:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=804684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Reassessment Under Section 147 Barred After Four Years When All Material Facts Were Initially Disclosed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86324</link>
      <description>The ITAT ruled against the revenue, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 after four years from the original assessment. The Tribunal determined that reopening was impermissible as the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, and the reassessment was merely based on an audit objection constituting a change of opinion. On merits, ITAT rejected the revenue&#039;s contention that changing land use from cinema hall to commercial complex amounted to conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade under section 45(2). The Tribunal clarified that entering into a development agreement does not automatically trigger section 45(2), particularly when the assessee consistently treated the property as a capital asset in its accounts and was not engaged in real estate business.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 08:41:19 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>