<?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>1965 (3) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189041</link>
    <description>A reassessment under section 34(1)(b) was supported where scrutiny of a later year&#039;s return revealed that dividend income had been shown on a receipt basis though it related to an earlier assessment year. On the facts recorded, the Income-tax Officer did not have that information when the original assessment was made. The later discovery of escaped income supplied the basis for reopening, so the challenge to the proceedings failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:18:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (3) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189041</link>
      <description>A reassessment under section 34(1)(b) was supported where scrutiny of a later year&#039;s return revealed that dividend income had been shown on a receipt basis though it related to an earlier assessment year. On the facts recorded, the Income-tax Officer did not have that information when the original assessment was made. The later discovery of escaped income supplied the basis for reopening, so the challenge to the proceedings failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>