<?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>2014 (2) TMI 660 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244065</link>
    <description>The petition challenging the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment for the year 2007-08 was dismissed. The Court held that the Assessing Officer had tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment, and the petitioner&#039;s objections did not provide a sufficient explanation. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the notice, emphasizing the importance of maintaining objections raised before the Assessing Officer unless the notice is without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2014 10:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 660 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244065</link>
      <description>The petition challenging the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment for the year 2007-08 was dismissed. The Court held that the Assessing Officer had tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment, and the petitioner&#039;s objections did not provide a sufficient explanation. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the notice, emphasizing the importance of maintaining objections raised before the Assessing Officer unless the notice is without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>