This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Reopening Without Tangible Evidence of Income Escapement is bad in law: HC
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Dinesh Kumar Goyal HUF Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All High Courts, Calcutta High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
Dinesh Kumar Goyal HUF Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court)
Introduction: The case of Dinesh Kumar Goyal HUF Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court) revolves around the challenge to a Section 148A(d) order for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant contests the reopening, emphasizing the absence of tangible material indicating income escapement.
Detailed Analysis: The assessing officer initiated reopening based on cash deposits, interest receipts, and debenture purchases. The appellant, having previously succeeded in challenging a similar action for the assessment year 2016-17, now faced a n...





