<?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>2006 (6) TMI 421 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120141</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee&#039;s and the department&#039;s appeals, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision. The income of the assessee-corporation was deemed taxable, not exempt under Article 289 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the interest levied under section 216 of the Income-tax Act was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) due to the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to issue a speaking order, as required by law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:03:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 421 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120141</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee&#039;s and the department&#039;s appeals, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision. The income of the assessee-corporation was deemed taxable, not exempt under Article 289 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the interest levied under section 216 of the Income-tax Act was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) due to the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to issue a speaking order, as required by law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>