<?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>1985 (10) TMI 84 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26509</link>
    <description>The court concluded that the income derived by the assessee from letting out the godown and part of the office premises was not considered business income but income from other sources. The court held that the income was chargeable under the head &#039;Other sources,&#039; based on the lack of evidence supporting the assessee&#039;s claim that the godown was used for warehousing business. The court also determined that the Income-tax Officer was not precluded from changing the stand taken in earlier assessment years, as the earlier decision was found to be unwarranted. The decision was made against the assessee, with costs to be paid by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:57:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (10) TMI 84 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26509</link>
      <description>The court concluded that the income derived by the assessee from letting out the godown and part of the office premises was not considered business income but income from other sources. The court held that the income was chargeable under the head &#039;Other sources,&#039; based on the lack of evidence supporting the assessee&#039;s claim that the godown was used for warehousing business. The court also determined that the Income-tax Officer was not precluded from changing the stand taken in earlier assessment years, as the earlier decision was found to be unwarranted. The decision was made against the assessee, with costs to be paid by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26509</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>