<?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>2003 (2) TMI 14 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11287</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1994-95 beyond the four-year period. The court found that there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts, making the notice invalid and without jurisdiction. The court rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument of delay and laches, holding that the notice was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 14 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11287</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1994-95 beyond the four-year period. The court found that there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts, making the notice invalid and without jurisdiction. The court rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument of delay and laches, holding that the notice was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>