<?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>2024 (3) TMI 109 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450328</link>
    <description>HC held the notice issued under s.148 on 31 July 2022 was barred by limitation. Applying the law as of the notice date, the first proviso to s.149 prevented issuance after 1 April 2021 for the relevant AY, so the fifth proviso could not save the notice; only the period 24 May-8 June 2022 could be excluded under the fifth proviso. The sixth proviso was inapplicable. The impugned notice was quashed and decision pronounced in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 109 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450328</link>
      <description>HC held the notice issued under s.148 on 31 July 2022 was barred by limitation. Applying the law as of the notice date, the first proviso to s.149 prevented issuance after 1 April 2021 for the relevant AY, so the fifth proviso could not save the notice; only the period 24 May-8 June 2022 could be excluded under the fifth proviso. The sixth proviso was inapplicable. The impugned notice was quashed and decision pronounced in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>