<?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>2009 (3) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32680</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment year 2001-02. The court found that the revenue&#039;s contentions regarding alleged tax evasion through fictitious transactions with Camelot Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. were unsubstantiated. It emphasized that the absence of margin money, high profits from a single client, and unusual trading volumes were insufficient grounds for reassessment. As the petitioner had disclosed material facts and there was no failure to comply with disclosure requirements, the court quashed the notice, stating that the conditions for reopening were not met.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32680</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment year 2001-02. The court found that the revenue&#039;s contentions regarding alleged tax evasion through fictitious transactions with Camelot Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. were unsubstantiated. It emphasized that the absence of margin money, high profits from a single client, and unusual trading volumes were insufficient grounds for reassessment. As the petitioner had disclosed material facts and there was no failure to comply with disclosure requirements, the court quashed the notice, stating that the conditions for reopening were not met.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>