<?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>2023 (8) TMI 522 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441543</link>
    <description>The Court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to incorrect facts and lack of a speaking order addressing objections. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed invalid as it was based on the flawed notice. The Court found the Writ Petition maintainable despite the availability of an alternate remedy, citing jurisdictional errors and incorrect factual basis for reopening the assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2023 16:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 522 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441543</link>
      <description>The Court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to incorrect facts and lack of a speaking order addressing objections. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed invalid as it was based on the flawed notice. The Court found the Writ Petition maintainable despite the availability of an alternate remedy, citing jurisdictional errors and incorrect factual basis for reopening the assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>