<?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 (7) TMI 107 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204791</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant in a tax assessment case. It held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as taxing the same income twice would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible. The Court also found that the income received from letting out premises should not be assessed in the appellant&#039;s hands, as there was no evidence to suggest the transactions were not genuine. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 15:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 107 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204791</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant in a tax assessment case. It held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as taxing the same income twice would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible. The Court also found that the income received from letting out premises should not be assessed in the appellant&#039;s hands, as there was no evidence to suggest the transactions were not genuine. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204791</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>