<?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>2019 (2) TMI 337 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374710</link>
    <description>The court quashed the notice for reopening assessment, finding it invalid due to being based on a mere change of opinion. The petitioner had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, rendering the reopening unjustified. The court emphasized that once an issue has been examined during the original assessment, it cannot be reopened on the grounds of a change of opinion. The petition was allowed, and the reopening notice was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2019 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=556876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 337 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374710</link>
      <description>The court quashed the notice for reopening assessment, finding it invalid due to being based on a mere change of opinion. The petitioner had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, rendering the reopening unjustified. The court emphasized that once an issue has been examined during the original assessment, it cannot be reopened on the grounds of a change of opinion. The petition was allowed, and the reopening notice was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>