<?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>1995 (4) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5481</link>
    <description>Reassessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act could include items otherwise falling under section 147(b), and the distinction between sections 147(a) and 147(b) did not require deletion of additions made under section 147(b). The Supreme Court answered both referred questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, noting that the Revenue accepted this position on the facts and that the point was covered by the cited precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2018 10:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44564" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5481</link>
      <description>Reassessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act could include items otherwise falling under section 147(b), and the distinction between sections 147(a) and 147(b) did not require deletion of additions made under section 147(b). The Supreme Court answered both referred questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, noting that the Revenue accepted this position on the facts and that the point was covered by the cited precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>