<?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>1989 (5) TMI 108 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63926</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that there is no statutory or natural justice rule entitling an applicant under sec. 254(2) to a personal hearing unless prejudicial changes are proposed. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice as the assessee was heard through a detailed written application. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application to recall the order, emphasizing the need to conserve judicial time and avoid unnecessary hearings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:23:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (5) TMI 108 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63926</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that there is no statutory or natural justice rule entitling an applicant under sec. 254(2) to a personal hearing unless prejudicial changes are proposed. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice as the assessee was heard through a detailed written application. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application to recall the order, emphasizing the need to conserve judicial time and avoid unnecessary hearings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>