<?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>2007 (7) TMI 8 -  HIGH COURT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1647</link>
    <description>The High Court of Bombay ruled in favor of the assessee in a case challenging the reopening of assessments for A.Y. 2000-01 and A.Y. 2001-02 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the assessee had complied with Section 80HHD requirements by utilizing funds for specified purposes, rejecting the revenue&#039;s argument of income escaping assessment. The court quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the order rejecting objections, allowing the petition with no costs to either party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 May 2011 14:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41045" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 8 -  HIGH COURT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1647</link>
      <description>The High Court of Bombay ruled in favor of the assessee in a case challenging the reopening of assessments for A.Y. 2000-01 and A.Y. 2001-02 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the assessee had complied with Section 80HHD requirements by utilizing funds for specified purposes, rejecting the revenue&#039;s argument of income escaping assessment. The court quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the order rejecting objections, allowing the petition with no costs to either party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>