<?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>2000 (1) TMI 151 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64604</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the District Excise Officer (DEO) is considered an &quot;assessee&quot; and that the order under Section 206C(1) read with Section 206C(7) constitutes an assessment order. Consequently, the DEO was granted the right to appeal under Section 246(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the substantive nature of the right to appeal and ruled in favor of the DEO, allowing all appeals against the orders issued under Sections 206C(1) and 206C(7).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103045" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 151 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64604</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the District Excise Officer (DEO) is considered an &quot;assessee&quot; and that the order under Section 206C(1) read with Section 206C(7) constitutes an assessment order. Consequently, the DEO was granted the right to appeal under Section 246(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the substantive nature of the right to appeal and ruled in favor of the DEO, allowing all appeals against the orders issued under Sections 206C(1) and 206C(7).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>