<?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 (6) TMI 724 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772611</link>
    <description>Urgent circulation for a challenge to a show cause notice was refused because the claimed urgency was artificial and the petition was directed only against the notice. The HC noted that the petitioner approached the court at the fag end, when assessment was likely to become time-barred shortly, and held that this did not justify invoking the urgent circulation facility. The praecipe was dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:28:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=828225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 724 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772611</link>
      <description>Urgent circulation for a challenge to a show cause notice was refused because the claimed urgency was artificial and the petition was directed only against the notice. The HC noted that the petitioner approached the court at the fag end, when assessment was likely to become time-barred shortly, and held that this did not justify invoking the urgent circulation facility. The praecipe was dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>