<?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>2005 (10) TMI 76 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10014</link>
    <description>The HC held the s.148 notice and the Commissioner&#039;s approval to reopen assessment invalid. The Commissioner granted approval contemporaneously without verifying whether the assessee failed to make full and true disclosure or whether reopening fell within the four-year limitation; this non-application of mind rendered the approval and consequent notices and reasons recorded unsustainable. The impugned notices and the order justifying reopening were quashed and set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 22:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 76 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10014</link>
      <description>The HC held the s.148 notice and the Commissioner&#039;s approval to reopen assessment invalid. The Commissioner granted approval contemporaneously without verifying whether the assessee failed to make full and true disclosure or whether reopening fell within the four-year limitation; this non-application of mind rendered the approval and consequent notices and reasons recorded unsustainable. The impugned notices and the order justifying reopening were quashed and set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>