<?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>2025 (2) TMI 51 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765505</link>
    <description>HC ruled that a combined tax reassessment order violated procedural requirements and principles of natural justice. The court quashed the impugned notice, finding it procedurally flawed because objections were not separately disposed of before assessment. The petitioner was not required to pursue an appeal, given the jurisdictional defects. The court emphasized the need for separate orders in tax reassessment proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=794114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 51 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765505</link>
      <description>HC ruled that a combined tax reassessment order violated procedural requirements and principles of natural justice. The court quashed the impugned notice, finding it procedurally flawed because objections were not separately disposed of before assessment. The petitioner was not required to pursue an appeal, given the jurisdictional defects. The court emphasized the need for separate orders in tax reassessment proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>