<?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>2000 (2) TMI 32 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14224</link>
    <description>A criminal complaint under the Income-tax Act alleging concealment of income and false statements could not survive where the appellate authority had already found no concealment and had accepted the valuation method used for closing stock. Because the departmental findings negated the very factual basis of the prosecution, the criminal court could not proceed on allegations contrary to those findings. The complaint was therefore held not maintainable and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:42:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 32 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14224</link>
      <description>A criminal complaint under the Income-tax Act alleging concealment of income and false statements could not survive where the appellate authority had already found no concealment and had accepted the valuation method used for closing stock. Because the departmental findings negated the very factual basis of the prosecution, the criminal court could not proceed on allegations contrary to those findings. The complaint was therefore held not maintainable and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>