<?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 (7) TMI 821 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794935</link>
    <description>Reassessment under Section 147 was examined where notice was issued after four years in an assessment governed by Section 115JB (Minimum Alternate Tax). The text records the Gujarat HC view that no income escapement was established in the MAT assessment, so reassessment proceedings could not be sustained. The Supreme Court declined to interfere and dismissed the Special Leave Petition, while expressly keeping any question of law open. Accordingly, the material indicates that the immediate reassessment dispute did not result in Supreme Court interference, but it does not finally determine the broader legal question concerning reopening, limitation, or the &quot;reason to believe&quot; requirement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 08:26:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 821 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794935</link>
      <description>Reassessment under Section 147 was examined where notice was issued after four years in an assessment governed by Section 115JB (Minimum Alternate Tax). The text records the Gujarat HC view that no income escapement was established in the MAT assessment, so reassessment proceedings could not be sustained. The Supreme Court declined to interfere and dismissed the Special Leave Petition, while expressly keeping any question of law open. Accordingly, the material indicates that the immediate reassessment dispute did not result in Supreme Court interference, but it does not finally determine the broader legal question concerning reopening, limitation, or the &quot;reason to believe&quot; requirement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>