<?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>1980 (3) TMI 44 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36315</link>
    <description>The High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed the notice under s. 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment of the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, and 1977-78. The court held that the assessing officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessments based on a mere change of opinion without new information, citing legal precedent. The petitions were allowed, the notice for reassessment was quashed, and the refund of the security deposit was directed to the petitioner, with each party bearing their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:21:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (3) TMI 44 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36315</link>
      <description>The High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed the notice under s. 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment of the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, and 1977-78. The court held that the assessing officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessments based on a mere change of opinion without new information, citing legal precedent. The petitions were allowed, the notice for reassessment was quashed, and the refund of the security deposit was directed to the petitioner, with each party bearing their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>