<?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>1982 (1) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29405</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the reassessment orders were liable to be quashed as the Income Tax Officer did not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147(a). The Court ruled against the department, stating that the conditions for invoking section 147(a) were not met as the income did not escape assessment due to the assessee&#039;s failure to disclose material facts. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in this reference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:56:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (1) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29405</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the reassessment orders were liable to be quashed as the Income Tax Officer did not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147(a). The Court ruled against the department, stating that the conditions for invoking section 147(a) were not met as the income did not escape assessment due to the assessee&#039;s failure to disclose material facts. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in this reference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>