https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464099 HC held the reopening invalid and decided for the assessee. The court found the assessee had truly and fully disclosed all material facts and that the additional depreciation claim under s.32(1)(iia) for FY 2010-11 had been considered during the original assessment. As no failure to disclose or fresh material existed, the AO lacked jurisdiction under the proviso to s.147 to issue a s.148 notice beyond four years. The reopening was therefore quashed. en-us Mon, 18 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Oct 2025 10:11:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464099 HC held the reopening invalid and decided for the assessee. The court found the assessee had truly and fully disclosed all material facts and that the additional depreciation claim under s.32(1)(iia) for FY 2010-11 had been considered during the original assessment. As no failure to disclose or fresh material existed, the AO lacked jurisdiction under the proviso to s.147 to issue a s.148 notice beyond four years. The reopening was therefore quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464099