<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (6) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76822</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the conditions for reopening the assessment beyond four years were not met as all material facts necessary for assessment had been fully and truly disclosed. The notice issued under Section 148 was set aside, and the petition was allowed with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2013 16:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76822</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the conditions for reopening the assessment beyond four years were not met as all material facts necessary for assessment had been fully and truly disclosed. The notice issued under Section 148 was set aside, and the petition was allowed with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>