<?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>2010 (2) TMI 26 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35561</link>
    <description>HC quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years under Section 147/148, holding that there was no failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts. The assessee&#039;s industrial undertaking, set up in a backward area and claiming deduction under Section 80IB, had only taken on lease land and building sold by a statutory financial corporation; the plant and machinery installed by the assessee was not previously used. Revenue&#039;s reasons for reopening did not allege transfer of used plant and machinery or any other specific nondisclosure. In absence of tangible material indicating escapement of income, the reopening was held invalid and the original assessment stood undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2025 16:42:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 26 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35561</link>
      <description>HC quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years under Section 147/148, holding that there was no failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts. The assessee&#039;s industrial undertaking, set up in a backward area and claiming deduction under Section 80IB, had only taken on lease land and building sold by a statutory financial corporation; the plant and machinery installed by the assessee was not previously used. Revenue&#039;s reasons for reopening did not allege transfer of used plant and machinery or any other specific nondisclosure. In absence of tangible material indicating escapement of income, the reopening was held invalid and the original assessment stood undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>