<?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 (11) TMI 168 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780700</link>
    <description>HC held the s.148 notice dated 5 Apr 2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 was time-barred and the subsequent reassessment order dated 3 Mar 2025 was bad in law. Applying the Supreme Court concession in Rajeev Bansal and this Court&#039;s decision in Hexaware, the HC found the reassessment proceedings should have been dropped and the notice was invalid. The assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:03:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=862033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 168 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780700</link>
      <description>HC held the s.148 notice dated 5 Apr 2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 was time-barred and the subsequent reassessment order dated 3 Mar 2025 was bad in law. Applying the Supreme Court concession in Rajeev Bansal and this Court&#039;s decision in Hexaware, the HC found the reassessment proceedings should have been dropped and the notice was invalid. The assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>