<?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>2016 (6) TMI 747 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329038</link>
    <description>The court dismissed all petitions, discharged the notices, and vacated the interim relief. It concluded that the reasons for reopening the assessment were valid as they detailed the creation of sham companies for accommodation entries. The court found sufficient material linking the petitioner to the sale of shares, justifying the belief that income had escaped assessment. Despite minor discrepancies in the specificity of the assessment year, the majority of transactions supported the reopening of the assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432338" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 747 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329038</link>
      <description>The court dismissed all petitions, discharged the notices, and vacated the interim relief. It concluded that the reasons for reopening the assessment were valid as they detailed the creation of sham companies for accommodation entries. The court found sufficient material linking the petitioner to the sale of shares, justifying the belief that income had escaped assessment. Despite minor discrepancies in the specificity of the assessment year, the majority of transactions supported the reopening of the assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>