<?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>2006 (7) TMI 145 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9972</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the notice dated July 6, 1998, under section 292B of the Income-tax Act, despite technical defects, as it did not prejudice the appellant. The subsequent notice corrected any issues, validating the original notice. The court also confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 3,85,196 under section 37 due to lack of evidence supporting it as business expenditure. The appeal was dismissed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 145 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9972</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the notice dated July 6, 1998, under section 292B of the Income-tax Act, despite technical defects, as it did not prejudice the appellant. The subsequent notice corrected any issues, validating the original notice. The court also confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 3,85,196 under section 37 due to lack of evidence supporting it as business expenditure. The appeal was dismissed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>