<?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>2011 (8) TMI 324 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206100</link>
    <description>A transfer of assessment jurisdiction between assessing officers situated in the same city, locality or place under section 127(3) of the Income-tax Act is an administrative transfer that does not require prior notice, hearing, or recorded reasons. The Court distinguished transfers under section 127(1) and section 127(2), where different statutory safeguards apply, and followed binding Supreme Court precedent on the proviso to section 127(3). The challenge to a Joint Commissioner holding additional charge also failed because the transfer was to the assessing office, not the individual officer, and the Joint Commissioner fell within the definition of assessing officer. The transfer order was upheld as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 324 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206100</link>
      <description>A transfer of assessment jurisdiction between assessing officers situated in the same city, locality or place under section 127(3) of the Income-tax Act is an administrative transfer that does not require prior notice, hearing, or recorded reasons. The Court distinguished transfers under section 127(1) and section 127(2), where different statutory safeguards apply, and followed binding Supreme Court precedent on the proviso to section 127(3). The challenge to a Joint Commissioner holding additional charge also failed because the transfer was to the assessing office, not the individual officer, and the Joint Commissioner fell within the definition of assessing officer. The transfer order was upheld as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>