<?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>Reason to believe in reassessment requires a live material nexus; unrelated allegations and later law cannot sustain reopening.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103286</link>
    <description>Reassessment requires recorded material to have a rational connection and live nexus with the belief that income escaped assessment; suspicion based on statements or survey material unrelated to the taxpayer or investment transaction is insufficient. Allegations concerning an investor&#039;s representative, without transaction-specific material, could not support reopening for purportedly non-genuine share capital and share premium. For employees&#039; provident fund and insurance contributions, the law prevailing when notice was issued allowed deduction where payment was made by the return-filing due date. A later contrary Supreme Court ruling could not retrospectively validate the recorded reason. The reassessment notice was quashed because neither ground established a sustainable reason to believe.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:26:22 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:26:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=920007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Reason to believe in reassessment requires a live material nexus; unrelated allegations and later law cannot sustain reopening.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103286</link>
      <description>Reassessment requires recorded material to have a rational connection and live nexus with the belief that income escaped assessment; suspicion based on statements or survey material unrelated to the taxpayer or investment transaction is insufficient. Allegations concerning an investor&#039;s representative, without transaction-specific material, could not support reopening for purportedly non-genuine share capital and share premium. For employees&#039; provident fund and insurance contributions, the law prevailing when notice was issued allowed deduction where payment was made by the return-filing due date. A later contrary Supreme Court ruling could not retrospectively validate the recorded reason. The reassessment notice was quashed because neither ground established a sustainable reason to believe.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:26:22 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>