<?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 (9) TMI 913 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758669</link>
    <description>HC held that reassessment initiated within four years was invalid because the material relied upon by the assessing officer was already available during the original assessment, so the action constituted an impermissible change of opinion rather than discovery of new tangible material. The tribunal&#039;s finding that the reopening lacked fresh information was upheld and no substantial question of law arose. Appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2025 13:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768545" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 913 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758669</link>
      <description>HC held that reassessment initiated within four years was invalid because the material relied upon by the assessing officer was already available during the original assessment, so the action constituted an impermissible change of opinion rather than discovery of new tangible material. The tribunal&#039;s finding that the reopening lacked fresh information was upheld and no substantial question of law arose. Appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758669</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>