<?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 (4) TMI 494 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211780</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the reopening of assessments under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The court held that the notices issued beyond the four-year period were valid, rejecting the petitioner&#039;s arguments of a change of opinion and lack of material disclosure. Emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy under the Income Tax Act, the court declined to interfere, instructing the petitioner to address objections before the assessing authority. The court maintained that interference would only occur in cases of jurisdictional errors or fundamental rights violations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 08:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185197" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 494 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211780</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the reopening of assessments under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The court held that the notices issued beyond the four-year period were valid, rejecting the petitioner&#039;s arguments of a change of opinion and lack of material disclosure. Emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy under the Income Tax Act, the court declined to interfere, instructing the petitioner to address objections before the assessing authority. The court maintained that interference would only occur in cases of jurisdictional errors or fundamental rights violations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>