<?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 (9) TMI 1240 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412895</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the decision to club Writ Petition No.1104 of 2017 with others, rejecting the review application. It was determined that the re-opening of assessment for the year 2010-2011 was based on the Shah Commission Report, despite the information source being mentioned differently. The Court found no error in the original judgment, concluding that the issue aligned with other petitions and justified the clubbing for disposal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2021 10:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657166" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 1240 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412895</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the decision to club Writ Petition No.1104 of 2017 with others, rejecting the review application. It was determined that the re-opening of assessment for the year 2010-2011 was based on the Shah Commission Report, despite the information source being mentioned differently. The Court found no error in the original judgment, concluding that the issue aligned with other petitions and justified the clubbing for disposal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>