<?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>2012 (2) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210574</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the Petition, quashing the notice dated 20 June 2011 to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the reasons provided did not establish a failure to disclose all material facts by the Petitioner, particularly regarding the relationship with its parent company. The Court emphasized the jurisdictional requirement for reopening assessments beyond four years and concluded that the notice was invalid. The Court also considered the timing of the appeal for 2007-08, which was after the notice for reopening the 2005-06 assessment, further supporting the decision to disallow the reopening.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210574</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the Petition, quashing the notice dated 20 June 2011 to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the reasons provided did not establish a failure to disclose all material facts by the Petitioner, particularly regarding the relationship with its parent company. The Court emphasized the jurisdictional requirement for reopening assessments beyond four years and concluded that the notice was invalid. The Court also considered the timing of the appeal for 2007-08, which was after the notice for reopening the 2005-06 assessment, further supporting the decision to disallow the reopening.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>