<?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 1728 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292392</link>
    <description>The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order dated 29/12/2009, finding the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to dispose of the objections raised by the assessee as a significant procedural lapse. Relying on a Bombay High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the reassessment order was without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the reassessment order was invalidated, with the Tribunal refraining from addressing other grounds due to the resolution of the primary issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:48:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630873" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1728 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292392</link>
      <description>The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order dated 29/12/2009, finding the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to dispose of the objections raised by the assessee as a significant procedural lapse. Relying on a Bombay High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the reassessment order was without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the reassessment order was invalidated, with the Tribunal refraining from addressing other grounds due to the resolution of the primary issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>