<?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 (11) TMI 966 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334948</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the notice seeking to reopen the assessment for the year 2009-10, allowing for further scrutiny of the transaction involving the transfer of shares. The Court found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were valid, emphasizing the need for examination beyond the statutory period due to lack of disclosure. The Court clarified that its findings were preliminary and did not bar the petitioner from raising contentions during reassessment proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 966 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334948</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the notice seeking to reopen the assessment for the year 2009-10, allowing for further scrutiny of the transaction involving the transfer of shares. The Court found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were valid, emphasizing the need for examination beyond the statutory period due to lack of disclosure. The Court clarified that its findings were preliminary and did not bar the petitioner from raising contentions during reassessment proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334948</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>