<?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 (7) TMI 21 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214445</link>
    <description>The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for the years 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03 as invalid due to the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to provide the recorded reasons for reopening the assessment within a reasonable time. Consequently, the issues regarding the disallowance of commission, failure to give effect to the Appellate Order, and charging of interest under Section 234-D were not addressed. The appeals by the assessee were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2026 15:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 21 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214445</link>
      <description>The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for the years 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03 as invalid due to the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to provide the recorded reasons for reopening the assessment within a reasonable time. Consequently, the issues regarding the disallowance of commission, failure to give effect to the Appellate Order, and charging of interest under Section 234-D were not addressed. The appeals by the assessee were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>