<?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 (11) TMI 71 -  ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201529</link>
    <description>A special audit direction under section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act could not be sustained because the assessee was not given a prior opportunity of hearing. The document states that such pre-decisional hearing is mandatory before invoking the special audit power, and failure to afford it vitiates the order. The special audit direction was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted to the assessing officer for fresh decision in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:52:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 71 -  ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201529</link>
      <description>A special audit direction under section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act could not be sustained because the assessee was not given a prior opportunity of hearing. The document states that such pre-decisional hearing is mandatory before invoking the special audit power, and failure to afford it vitiates the order. The special audit direction was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted to the assessing officer for fresh decision in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201529</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>