<?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>2010 (3) TMI 938 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151395</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the lack of valid service of notice under section 148 and the non-existence of the amalgamated company post-amalgamation. The assessment made on the amalgamated company was deemed null and void as it was on a non-existent assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal annulled the assessment order, dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, and allowed the assessee&#039;s cross-objection. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 938 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151395</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the lack of valid service of notice under section 148 and the non-existence of the amalgamated company post-amalgamation. The assessment made on the amalgamated company was deemed null and void as it was on a non-existent assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal annulled the assessment order, dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, and allowed the assessee&#039;s cross-objection. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>