<?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>1993 (11) TMI 27 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19807</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 147(b) based on section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, as the Tribunal&#039;s findings were binding. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that reassessment was unjustified. The second question regarding the applicability of section 40A(7) was not addressed due to the resolution of the first issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:59:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (11) TMI 27 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19807</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 147(b) based on section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, as the Tribunal&#039;s findings were binding. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that reassessment was unjustified. The second question regarding the applicability of section 40A(7) was not addressed due to the resolution of the first issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>