<?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>2013 (4) TMI 189 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221993</link>
    <description>The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a Public Limited Company, in a case challenging a notice for re-assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to set off losses from share trading against business profits as per the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed unjustified, leading to the quashing of the notices. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 189 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221993</link>
      <description>The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a Public Limited Company, in a case challenging a notice for re-assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to set off losses from share trading against business profits as per the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed unjustified, leading to the quashing of the notices. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>