S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Share application money-Shell bogus companies-Information from investigation wing-Notice and reassessment was held to be valid. [S. 68, 131, 148, Art. 226]
S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Share application money-Shell bogus companies-Information from investigation wing-Notice and reassessment was held to be valid. [S. 68, 131, 148, Art. 226]
S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-Sanction-Non application of mind-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 92CA(3), 143(3), 144C, 148, 151, Art. 226]
S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Reasons for notice were different from issues concluded during original assessment-Notice was held to be valid. [S. 143(3),148, Art. 226]
S. 147 : Reassessment-Other income not disclosed-Alternative remedy-Correctness of facts cannot be decided in writ proceedings-Reassessment proceedings is held to be valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]
S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Information by external agency-Sufficiency of reasons not to be gone into in Writ proceedings-Notice of reassessment is valid. [S. 148, 151, Art. 226]
S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-Information from audit party-Sufficiency of reasons not to be gone into by High Court-Reassessment notice was held to be valid. [S. 10A, 10AA, 115JB, 148, Art. 226]
S. 147 : Reassessment-Within four years-Speaking order only with reference to reasons for reopening of assessment and not on all issues-Reassessment was held to be valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]
S. 147 : Reassessment-Fringe benefits tax-Reason to believe-Information from audit-Disputed facts not to be adjudicated by Court-Reassessment proceeding is held to be valid. [S. 115WG, 115WH, 148, 150, Art. 226]
S. 147 : Reassessment-Search and seizure-Information from DIT (Inv)-Bogus accommodation entries-Reassessment notice is held to be valid. [S. 68, 132(4), 148, Art. 226]
S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Accommodation entries-Information from Investigation wing-New material-Notice and rejection of objection was held to be valid. [S. 132, 148, Art. 226]