<?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>1958 (10) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173361</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act. It held that the Income-tax Officer had reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner&#039;s income had escaped assessment, the conditions precedent for issuing the notice were met, the notice was not vague or indefinite, and the petitioner failed to prove the Officer lacked jurisdiction. The rule was discharged, and the petition was dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:07:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397161" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (10) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173361</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act. It held that the Income-tax Officer had reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner&#039;s income had escaped assessment, the conditions precedent for issuing the notice were met, the notice was not vague or indefinite, and the petitioner failed to prove the Officer lacked jurisdiction. The rule was discharged, and the petition was dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>