<?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>2020 (2) TMI 1741 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461389</link>
    <description>A reassessment notice under the Income-tax Act was held invalid because the recorded reasons did not relate to the relevant assessment year and instead contained figures from a different year. The Court found that no proper basis existed to reopen the assessment year in question, and that the notice had been issued mechanically at the fag end of limitation without a valid formation of opinion. On that basis, the reassessment proceedings were quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2025 19:02:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=811557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1741 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461389</link>
      <description>A reassessment notice under the Income-tax Act was held invalid because the recorded reasons did not relate to the relevant assessment year and instead contained figures from a different year. The Court found that no proper basis existed to reopen the assessment year in question, and that the notice had been issued mechanically at the fag end of limitation without a valid formation of opinion. On that basis, the reassessment proceedings were quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>