https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205393 The High Court of Bombay, in a judgment by Judges Devadhar J. P. and Mridula Bhatkar Mrs. JJ, addressed a challenge to a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for the year 2004-05. Relying on precedent from Balkrishna Hiralal Wani v. ITO [2010] 321 ITR 519 (Bom), the court quashed the notice dated March 25, 2010, finding it invalid. The court emphasized the importance of disclosing all material facts for assessment to prevent income from escaping taxation and underscored the legal requirements for issuing such notices under the Income-tax Act. en-us Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205393 The High Court of Bombay, in a judgment by Judges Devadhar J. P. and Mridula Bhatkar Mrs. JJ, addressed a challenge to a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for the year 2004-05. Relying on precedent from Balkrishna Hiralal Wani v. ITO [2010] 321 ITR 519 (Bom), the court quashed the notice dated March 25, 2010, finding it invalid. The court emphasized the importance of disclosing all material facts for assessment to prevent income from escaping taxation and underscored the legal requirements for issuing such notices under the Income-tax Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205393