<?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 (10) TMI 332 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444109</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the petition, determining that the Revenue failed to demonstrate non-disclosure of material facts by the petitioner. The court found that the reopening of the assessment was based solely on a change of opinion. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 27th March 2021, the order dated 22nd March 2022, and related notices were quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed without any order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=728560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 332 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444109</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the petition, determining that the Revenue failed to demonstrate non-disclosure of material facts by the petitioner. The court found that the reopening of the assessment was based solely on a change of opinion. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 27th March 2021, the order dated 22nd March 2022, and related notices were quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed without any order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>