<?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 (7) TMI 997 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383301</link>
    <description>The court quashed the impugned order transferring assessments for the mentioned years under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found procedural deficiencies, including inadequate communication of reasons for transfer, lack of materials provided, and failure to establish a connection with the Ranka group. Despite offering a personal hearing opportunity, the petitioner did not avail it. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice principles, fair hearings, and consideration of objections before making decisions. Due to these flaws in the procedure followed, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order and disposing of the petition accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=580236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 997 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383301</link>
      <description>The court quashed the impugned order transferring assessments for the mentioned years under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found procedural deficiencies, including inadequate communication of reasons for transfer, lack of materials provided, and failure to establish a connection with the Ranka group. Despite offering a personal hearing opportunity, the petitioner did not avail it. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice principles, fair hearings, and consideration of objections before making decisions. Due to these flaws in the procedure followed, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order and disposing of the petition accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>