In the course of survey operation in the premises of the Indian subsidiary of the foreign assessee, it was found that the foreign assessee had not disclosed certain royalty/FTS income receivable from such subsidiary. Accordingly, assessments were sought to be reopened. Assessee challenged the reassessment on the ground that the reasons for reopening erroneously stated that it had not filed a return of income, whereas its branch had filed a return on its behalf. The AO’s action of reopening was upheld by the CIT(A) and the ITAT. On appeal to the High Court, it was held that the assessee had not disputed the fact that it had not disclosed royalty and FTS income receivable from its subsidiary in the original returns of income and the assessee had in fact disclosed such income in the return filed pursuant to reopening. Therefore, reassessment was justified. Regarding the assessee’s ground that its branch office had filed a return of income on its behalf, the High Court noted that such return only disclosed income from software operations and not the royalty/FTS income. (AY. 2004-05 to 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10)