<?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>1966 (9) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7147</link>
    <description>The court ruled that the Income-tax Officer did not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as the petitioner had disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment. The conditions under section 147(a) were not met, leading to the quashing of the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held in favor of the petitioner, making the rule absolute and not awarding any costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (9) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7147</link>
      <description>The court ruled that the Income-tax Officer did not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as the petitioner had disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment. The conditions under section 147(a) were not met, leading to the quashing of the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held in favor of the petitioner, making the rule absolute and not awarding any costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>