<?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 (8) TMI 1031 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797157</link>
    <description>Reassessment initiated and completed against a dissolved partnership firm after its business succession to a proprietorship concern is legally unsustainable where the Department had accepted the succession and assessed the relevant transactions in the successor&#039;s hands. Assessing the same income again in the dissolved firm&#039;s hands would cause impermissible double taxation. Reopening jurisdiction also fails where the recorded reasons merely refer to financial transactions and cash deposits without identifying the relevant bank account, specific transaction, or material indicating income escapement by the erstwhile firm. The reassessment and consequential addition were therefore invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2026 08:35:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917482" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1031 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797157</link>
      <description>Reassessment initiated and completed against a dissolved partnership firm after its business succession to a proprietorship concern is legally unsustainable where the Department had accepted the succession and assessed the relevant transactions in the successor&#039;s hands. Assessing the same income again in the dissolved firm&#039;s hands would cause impermissible double taxation. Reopening jurisdiction also fails where the recorded reasons merely refer to financial transactions and cash deposits without identifying the relevant bank account, specific transaction, or material indicating income escapement by the erstwhile firm. The reassessment and consequential addition were therefore invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>