<?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>2021 (6) TMI 825 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408929</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, ruling the reassessment invalid due to being based on a mere change of opinion without new tangible material. Following the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in M/s. Kelvinator India Ltd. and its own precedent, the Court emphasized the necessity of tangible material for reassessment validity. The Court left questions of law (ii) to (v) open for future consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2021 15:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=647710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 825 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408929</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, ruling the reassessment invalid due to being based on a mere change of opinion without new tangible material. Following the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in M/s. Kelvinator India Ltd. and its own precedent, the Court emphasized the necessity of tangible material for reassessment validity. The Court left questions of law (ii) to (v) open for future consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>