The judgment reiterates that reassessment cannot be initiated merely because the AO takes a different view later. Jurisdictional limits under tax law were strictly enforced.
The SC confirmed that reassessment beyond four years is invalid where full material facts were disclosed during scrutiny. A mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening.
The court held that reopening after four years based on a different view of the same expenditure amounts to a change of opinion. Absence of failure to disclose material facts made the reassessment invalid.
The ruling reiterates that reassessment after four years requires a clear failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Absence of such failure rendered the notice unsustainable.
The court held that reopening beyond four years is invalid when the recorded reasons do not allege failure to disclose material facts. Full disclosure by the assessee barred reassessment.
The ruling confirms that reassessment based on investigation inputs cannot proceed without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Prior scrutiny of share capital defeated the reopening.
Tribunal held that a company engaged in diversified IT consultancy and transformation services cannot be compared with a routine software development service provider
The Tribunal held that advances linked to regular business dealings such as sale of timeshare weeks cannot be taxed as deemed dividend, reaffirming that commercial transactions fall outside section 2(22)(e)
NCLAT ruled that commercial borrowing with agreed interest constitutes financial debt even without a formal loan agreement
The issue was whether depreciation on goodwill arising from demerger was wrongly allowed. The Court held that since the Assessing Officer had made due enquiries and taken a plausible view, revision under Section 263 was invalid.
