<?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>2013 (6) TMI 94 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234269</link>
    <description>The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and clarified that the Commissioner of Income Tax could take fresh steps under the amended provision. The court found the impugned order was without jurisdiction and illegal, as the Commissioner lacked the power to cancel registration under Section 12-A at that time. Despite an alternative remedy through appeal, the court decided against relegate the petitioner due to jurisdictional issues with the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 94 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234269</link>
      <description>The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and clarified that the Commissioner of Income Tax could take fresh steps under the amended provision. The court found the impugned order was without jurisdiction and illegal, as the Commissioner lacked the power to cancel registration under Section 12-A at that time. Despite an alternative remedy through appeal, the court decided against relegate the petitioner due to jurisdictional issues with the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234269</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>