<?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>1973 (3) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8908</link>
    <description>The High Court of Allahabad affirmed the validity of reopening assessments under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for specific assessment years due to the non-disclosure of crucial lease deed information. It held that failure to produce the lease deed constituted an omission of material facts, justifying the reopening. The court also clarified the applicability of section 24(1)(i)(b) for deductions related to repairs when the landlord is responsible for major repairs. It concluded that previously disallowed expenditure could not be revisited during reassessment unless directly linked to the newly assessed income. The court ruled in favor of the department, awarding costs and counsel fees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (3) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8908</link>
      <description>The High Court of Allahabad affirmed the validity of reopening assessments under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for specific assessment years due to the non-disclosure of crucial lease deed information. It held that failure to produce the lease deed constituted an omission of material facts, justifying the reopening. The court also clarified the applicability of section 24(1)(i)(b) for deductions related to repairs when the landlord is responsible for major repairs. It concluded that previously disallowed expenditure could not be revisited during reassessment unless directly linked to the newly assessed income. The court ruled in favor of the department, awarding costs and counsel fees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8908</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>