TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appeal was maintainable when Form No. 36 was not verified by the person authorised under the Income-tax Rules and Section 140 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The appeal memo in Form No. 36 was required to be signed and verified in accordance with Rule 47(1) read with Rule 45(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The person competent to verify the return of income for a company under Section 140 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was the Managing Director, or in his absence, a Director. The appeal was verified by the authorised representative and not by the competent company functionary. The defect went to the validity of the appeal itself.
Conclusion: The appeal was not a valid appeal and was dismissed in limine.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
