Search Results for "reopen assessment"

386 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 386 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petition in Income Tax Reassessment Case Due to Change of Opinion. Reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be based on a mere change of opinion on the same facts already examined.

The petitioner, Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd., which operates the Kolkata Knight Riders team in the Indian Premier League, challenged a notice dated ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for Lack of Fresh Material. Reassessment based on mere change of opinion on share premium addition under Section 68 is invalid as all material was disclosed during original assessment.

The petitioner, Rajshree Realtors Private Limited, a real estate company, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-2013 declaring income of...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitioner in Income Tax Reassessment Case — Mushroom Farming Income Held Agricultural. Reassessment Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Quashed as Based on Change of Opinion.

The petitioner, Zuari Foods and Farms Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company engaged in mushroom farming, filed its income tax return for assessment yea...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Reopening Notice Under Section 148 Income Tax Act for Mere Change of Opinion. Assessment Completed Under Section 143(3) Cannot Be Reopened Without Fresh Tangible Material.

The petitioner, Sanand Properties Pvt. Ltd., filed a return for Assessment Year 2008-09 declaring income of Rs.20.33 lakhs, later revised to Rs.19.14 ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Reopening of Assessment in Income Tax Case Due to Lack of Fresh Material. Notice under Section 148 issued beyond four years quashed as there was no failure to disclose material facts and the reasons constituted a change of opinion.

The petitioner, Anil Radhakrishna Wani, a solicitor and advocate, was a partner of Little & Company and retired on 30 September 2002. Upon retirement,...