<?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>2020 (12) TMI 990 - MADARAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402191</link>
    <description>The court upheld the reopening of income tax assessment for AY 2014-15 based on capital gains, stating that the Officer had jurisdiction under Section 147 for protective assessment. The validity of jurisdiction under Section 147 for AY 2012-13 was affirmed, emphasizing the concept of protective assessment in income tax proceedings. The court directed prompt reassessment and concurrent appeal hearing by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dismissing the writ petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2021 11:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=631263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 990 - MADARAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402191</link>
      <description>The court upheld the reopening of income tax assessment for AY 2014-15 based on capital gains, stating that the Officer had jurisdiction under Section 147 for protective assessment. The validity of jurisdiction under Section 147 for AY 2012-13 was affirmed, emphasizing the concept of protective assessment in income tax proceedings. The court directed prompt reassessment and concurrent appeal hearing by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dismissing the writ petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>