<?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 (6) TMI 108 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213788</link>
    <description>The court concluded that the respondent&#039;s notice for re-opening the assessment was invalid and illegal as it was not based on any failure by the petitioner to disclose material facts fully and truly. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 after the expiry of four years was deemed illegal and invalid. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned proceedings were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 108 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213788</link>
      <description>The court concluded that the respondent&#039;s notice for re-opening the assessment was invalid and illegal as it was not based on any failure by the petitioner to disclose material facts fully and truly. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 after the expiry of four years was deemed illegal and invalid. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned proceedings were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>