<?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 (4) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33198</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the attachment of money from the petitioner&#039;s bank account under the Income Tax Act. The Court found the petitioner liable as a guarantor for a loan, noted suppression of material facts, and rejected challenges against the attachment. Emphasizing the importance of full disclosure, the Court supported the decisions of the Tax Recovery Officer and Tribunal, denying relief to the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 May 2010 12:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33198</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the attachment of money from the petitioner&#039;s bank account under the Income Tax Act. The Court found the petitioner liable as a guarantor for a loan, noted suppression of material facts, and rejected challenges against the attachment. Emphasizing the importance of full disclosure, the Court supported the decisions of the Tax Recovery Officer and Tribunal, denying relief to the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>