<?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>1991 (5) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21664</link>
    <description>The court found the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment inadequate, as they did not sufficiently establish the inclusion of interest earned on security deposits in the assessee&#039;s income. The court noted the trivial amount in question and the lack of clarity regarding the interest on deposits with the U. P. Electric Supply Company. It concluded that the show cause notice was issued mechanically without proper consideration, ultimately quashing the notice and allowing the writ petition without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:02:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (5) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21664</link>
      <description>The court found the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment inadequate, as they did not sufficiently establish the inclusion of interest earned on security deposits in the assessee&#039;s income. The court noted the trivial amount in question and the lack of clarity regarding the interest on deposits with the U. P. Electric Supply Company. It concluded that the show cause notice was issued mechanically without proper consideration, ultimately quashing the notice and allowing the writ petition without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>