S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years / Within four years-Reasons to believe-Reopening based on borrowed information from DRI or Justice M.B. Shah Commission Report without independent application of mind by AO is not permissible-Failure to disclose material facts cannot be alleged based on a subsequent Supreme Court ruling. [S. 148, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-After expiry of four years-Scrutiny assessment-Where original assessment was completed after a detailed scrutiny of the assessee’s share transactions, a subsequent reopening of assessment on the same issue based on information regarding ‘client code modification’ is invalid, as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. [S. 68,143(3), 148, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-No failure to disclose material facts-Audit objection not new tangible material-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S 36(1)(vii), 36(2), 45, 143(3) 148, Art. 226]

S. 147: Reassessment-After expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Interest income capitalized to Work-in-Progress and non-addition of provision for income-tax-Issues were subject-matter of query during original assessment-Reopening held to be based on mere change of opinion and hence invalid. [S. 4, 56, 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Excess investment in shares-Where reasons for reopening were based entirely on financial statements already on record during the original assessment, it amounted to a mere change of opinion and was not sustainable as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. [S. 14A, 69, 148, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-After expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Reopening on issue already examined during original assessment proceedings held to be invalid. [S. 69, 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Amalgamation-Order passed on non-existent amalgamating company; invalidity-Defect is jurisdictional and not curable under S. 292B,even if, the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings. [S. 260A, 292B]

S. 139 : Return of income-Condonation of delay-One-day delay due to a bona fide technical glitch must be condoned; rejection of application on the ground that the return was already processed is misconceived. [S. 80P, 119(2)(b), 143(1), Art. 226]

S. 132B : Application of seized or requisitioned assets-Release of seized cash-Demonetisation-Specified Bank Notes (SBN)-Seizure by a Law Enforcement Agency covered by exception in SBN Act; RBI directed to accept SBNs seized by department prior to appointed day where assessee offered income to tax. [S. 131, 132, Specified Bank Notes (Cessation and Liabilities) Act, 2017, S. 5, Art. 226]

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases-Centralization for coordinated investigation-Transfer of NRI assessee’s case to another city upheld where he had transactions with persons whose cases were already centralized there; plea of breach of natural justice rejected due to lack of prejudice and assessee’s acquiescence. [S. 142(2A), 153A, Art. 226]