<?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>2018 (6) TMI 1326 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362499</link>
    <description>HC held that prima facie the petitioner showed no new facts or law justifying reopening; the reasons indicate mere change of opinion by the Revenue, which would undermine finality of assessments under Section 143(3). Consequently the impugned reopening notices are prima facie without jurisdiction, and an interim stay was granted as prayed in both petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 16:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1326 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362499</link>
      <description>HC held that prima facie the petitioner showed no new facts or law justifying reopening; the reasons indicate mere change of opinion by the Revenue, which would undermine finality of assessments under Section 143(3). Consequently the impugned reopening notices are prima facie without jurisdiction, and an interim stay was granted as prayed in both petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362499</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>