S. 148 : Reassessment-Amalgamation Of Companies-Intimation was conveyed to the revenue-Notice in name of non-existing entity-Not curable defect-Notice is void. [S. 147, 292B, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Loss-Carry forward and set off-Amalgamation of companies-Change of opinion-Reassessment was held to be not valid. [S. 72A(1)(a), 148, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-No tangible material-Sanction for notice was accorded mechanically-Breach of principle of natural justice-Share capital-Share premium-Notice was not valid-Existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar-Notice was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Non-compere fee-Failure to disclose material facts-Notice for reassessment is held to be valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Deduction allowed in part during original assessment-Pendency of appeal before Appellate Tribunal-Reassessment proceedings cannot be resorted to in respect of income which is the subject matter of an appeal, reference or revision. [S. 80IA, 148, 253, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Notice alleging failure to file the return-Acknowledgement for return filed was produced-Approval was not taken-Notice and order rejecting objections was Set aside- Cost of Rs 20,00 , was imposed on the Revenue . [S. 139, 148, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Bogus transaction-Accommodation entries-Assessing Officer verifying material and deciding information was true-Notice is valid. [S. 133(6), 148, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-Commission paid Chairman-Cum-Managing Director-CIT (A) allowing the claim in subsequent assessment year which has became final-Reassessment is held to be impermissible. [S. 36(1)(ii), 148]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Information from Investigation wing-No independent opinion-Cannot travel beyond reasons recorded-Notice was quashed. [S. 68, 148, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Under assessment of income-Misinterpretation of provision-Notice valid-High Court cannot consider sufficiency of reason. [S. 80IA, 148, Art. 226]