<?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 (9) TMI 1042 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348285</link>
    <description>The court quashed the impugned assessment order and allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the procedural flaw of the respondent&#039;s failure to pass a separate speaking order on objections to the reopening notice. The court highlighted the necessity of complying with the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in GKN Driveshafts, which mandates a separate speaking order for objections to reopening notices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Feb 2018 14:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1042 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348285</link>
      <description>The court quashed the impugned assessment order and allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the procedural flaw of the respondent&#039;s failure to pass a separate speaking order on objections to the reopening notice. The court highlighted the necessity of complying with the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in GKN Driveshafts, which mandates a separate speaking order for objections to reopening notices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>