<?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>1994 (1) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20157</link>
    <description>Reassessment under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act could not be sustained where the notices were issued solely on the basis of an audit objection. The Court applied the settled principle that an audit opinion on valuation facts, by itself, is not a valid foundation for reopening an assessment, and treated that principle as applicable to section 17. On the uncontroverted writ averments, the notices and consequential steps were therefore unsupported in law and were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:37:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59156" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20157</link>
      <description>Reassessment under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act could not be sustained where the notices were issued solely on the basis of an audit objection. The Court applied the settled principle that an audit opinion on valuation facts, by itself, is not a valid foundation for reopening an assessment, and treated that principle as applicable to section 17. On the uncontroverted writ averments, the notices and consequential steps were therefore unsupported in law and were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>