<?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>2026 (3) TMI 1497 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788742</link>
    <description>Reopening of assessment beyond four years under the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires the Revenue to show both a failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the existence of new tangible material, especially where the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3). The recorded reasons here rested on material already available in the assessment record and annual accounts, with no fresh material emerging after the original scrutiny. On that basis, the reassessment amounted only to a reappraisal of the same facts and was treated as a change of opinion. The reopening was therefore invalid and the reassessment could not be sustained for want of jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893216" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1497 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788742</link>
      <description>Reopening of assessment beyond four years under the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires the Revenue to show both a failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the existence of new tangible material, especially where the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3). The recorded reasons here rested on material already available in the assessment record and annual accounts, with no fresh material emerging after the original scrutiny. On that basis, the reassessment amounted only to a reappraisal of the same facts and was treated as a change of opinion. The reopening was therefore invalid and the reassessment could not be sustained for want of jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>