<?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 648 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182342</link>
    <description>Reopening of assessment under section 147 requires tangible material giving a rational nexus with the assessee&#039;s case and supporting a bona fide reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. A third-party statement that does not name the assessee or otherwise link the assessee to the alleged escapement is too vague and general to satisfy that statutory threshold. On the stated facts, the reassessment had no legal foundation and was not sustainable in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 May 2016 15:15:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 648 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182342</link>
      <description>Reopening of assessment under section 147 requires tangible material giving a rational nexus with the assessee&#039;s case and supporting a bona fide reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. A third-party statement that does not name the assessee or otherwise link the assessee to the alleged escapement is too vague and general to satisfy that statutory threshold. On the stated facts, the reassessment had no legal foundation and was not sustainable in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>