<?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>2008 (8) TMI 800 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159081</link>
    <description>The court found the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act to be invalid as they did not meet the prerequisites for reopening assessments under Section 147. The reasons provided were deemed inadequate and failed to establish a reasonable belief of income escaping assessment. Additionally, the court noted that previous block assessment proceedings had already settled the matter, making the reopening of assessments impermissible. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the notices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2014 12:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 800 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159081</link>
      <description>The court found the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act to be invalid as they did not meet the prerequisites for reopening assessments under Section 147. The reasons provided were deemed inadequate and failed to establish a reasonable belief of income escaping assessment. Additionally, the court noted that previous block assessment proceedings had already settled the matter, making the reopening of assessments impermissible. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the notices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>