<?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>1994 (11) TMI 191 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68149</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the assessee&#039;s application for a stay of set-aside assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1993-94 and early hearing of the appeal. Despite acknowledging its inherent power to stay assessment proceedings in suitable cases, the Tribunal found the absence of pending demands and the inconvenience of facing fresh assessment proceedings not warranting a stay. The Tribunal considered arguments from both parties, with the assessee&#039;s counsel emphasizing the audited nature of the company&#039;s accounts and minimal previous additions, while the Departmental Representative asserted the Tribunal lacked the authority to stay proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:57:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106551" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 191 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68149</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the assessee&#039;s application for a stay of set-aside assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1993-94 and early hearing of the appeal. Despite acknowledging its inherent power to stay assessment proceedings in suitable cases, the Tribunal found the absence of pending demands and the inconvenience of facing fresh assessment proceedings not warranting a stay. The Tribunal considered arguments from both parties, with the assessee&#039;s counsel emphasizing the audited nature of the company&#039;s accounts and minimal previous additions, while the Departmental Representative asserted the Tribunal lacked the authority to stay proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>