<?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 (11) TMI 1200 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388951</link>
    <description>The court partly allowed the application, permitting the accused to produce the reply to the demand notice as additional evidence but not allowing other documents. The court emphasized the importance of presenting all relevant evidence during the trial and clarified the scope of Section 391 regarding additional evidence at the appellate level.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=595536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 1200 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388951</link>
      <description>The court partly allowed the application, permitting the accused to produce the reply to the demand notice as additional evidence but not allowing other documents. The court emphasized the importance of presenting all relevant evidence during the trial and clarified the scope of Section 391 regarding additional evidence at the appellate level.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>