<?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>2017 (8) TMI 650 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346592</link>
    <description>The Court held that the second notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 was without jurisdiction as it lacked fresh material and was merely a change of opinion. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal requirements and preventing arbitrary reopening of assessments. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the writ petitions, ruling in favor of the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2017 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 650 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346592</link>
      <description>The Court held that the second notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 was without jurisdiction as it lacked fresh material and was merely a change of opinion. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal requirements and preventing arbitrary reopening of assessments. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the writ petitions, ruling in favor of the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>