<?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 (5) TMI 1845 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279266</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the reopening of assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding that the Assessing Officer had specific and definite information to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The court also determined that the procedural requirements for reopening assessments were met and accepted the explanation regarding a typographical error in the date of the notice. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions challenging the reopening of assessments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 11:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=562238" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1845 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279266</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the reopening of assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding that the Assessing Officer had specific and definite information to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The court also determined that the procedural requirements for reopening assessments were met and accepted the explanation regarding a typographical error in the date of the notice. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions challenging the reopening of assessments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>