<?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>1992 (11) TMI 148 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66795</link>
    <description>In the absence of a statutory time limit for service of a demand notice, delayed communication of an assessment order or demand notice does not by itself invalidate a completed assessment. The record also showed timely despatch in some years and subsequent correspondence giving the assessee knowledge of the demands. On maintainability, a person who undertakes the dissolved firm&#039;s tax liabilities may competently sign and prosecute the firm&#039;s appeals, including where the partnership deed and dissolution arrangement place liability on the successor. The contrary revenue objection was rejected as distinguishable, and the appeals were treated as maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:19:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=105230" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (11) TMI 148 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66795</link>
      <description>In the absence of a statutory time limit for service of a demand notice, delayed communication of an assessment order or demand notice does not by itself invalidate a completed assessment. The record also showed timely despatch in some years and subsequent correspondence giving the assessee knowledge of the demands. On maintainability, a person who undertakes the dissolved firm&#039;s tax liabilities may competently sign and prosecute the firm&#039;s appeals, including where the partnership deed and dissolution arrangement place liability on the successor. The contrary revenue objection was rejected as distinguishable, and the appeals were treated as maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>