<?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 (12) TMI 120 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335475</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding a challenge to an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2008-09. The Court found that the alleged additional evidence was not new and had been available to the Assessing Officer, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with no order as to costs. The Tribunal&#039;s factual determination that the evidence was already part of the assessment records supported the decision, as no substantial question of law arose for consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 21:47:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450366" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 120 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335475</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding a challenge to an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2008-09. The Court found that the alleged additional evidence was not new and had been available to the Assessing Officer, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with no order as to costs. The Tribunal&#039;s factual determination that the evidence was already part of the assessment records supported the decision, as no substantial question of law arose for consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>