<?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 (6) TMI 10 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14608</link>
    <description>An order under Section 195(2) determining the portion of remittance chargeable to tax is not conclusive for assessment purposes and does not preclude the Department from examining the issue afresh in regular assessment proceedings. Because that determination is non-binding in that sense, an appeal under Section 260A challenging the same issue does not give rise to a substantial question of law. The appeal was therefore dismissed as not maintainable on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:02:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 10 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14608</link>
      <description>An order under Section 195(2) determining the portion of remittance chargeable to tax is not conclusive for assessment purposes and does not preclude the Department from examining the issue afresh in regular assessment proceedings. Because that determination is non-binding in that sense, an appeal under Section 260A challenging the same issue does not give rise to a substantial question of law. The appeal was therefore dismissed as not maintainable on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>