<?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>2011 (2) TMI 65 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202916</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal&#039;s decision to reassess Rs. 100 lakhs was set aside. The order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the order of the CIT (Appeals) was affirmed. The questions formulated by the Division Bench were answered as follows: (a) Yes, (b) No, (c) No, (d) Yes, (e) No, (f) Yes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 65 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202916</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal&#039;s decision to reassess Rs. 100 lakhs was set aside. The order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the order of the CIT (Appeals) was affirmed. The questions formulated by the Division Bench were answered as follows: (a) Yes, (b) No, (c) No, (d) Yes, (e) No, (f) Yes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>