https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778519 The tribunal held that addition under s.68 cannot be made against the investee company where the details of shareholder-investors are on record and the assessee furnished required information. Further, reopening under s.147 was held invalid because more than one reopening notice existed for the same assessment year without disposal of the earlier notice; the Kolkata proceeding remained undisposed despite a centralized notice from another AO. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed and the reopening was quashed. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Sep 2025 08:30:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778519 The tribunal held that addition under s.68 cannot be made against the investee company where the details of shareholder-investors are on record and the assessee furnished required information. Further, reopening under s.147 was held invalid because more than one reopening notice existed for the same assessment year without disposal of the earlier notice; the Kolkata proceeding remained undisposed despite a centralized notice from another AO. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed and the reopening was quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778519