<?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 (12) TMI 599 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181497</link>
    <description>Rule 13E of the ITAT Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 bars a Member who retired on or after the notified date from appearing before the Tribunal, and the decisive date is the date of retirement, not the date of recruitment. The Tribunal applied the Special Bench view and held that this regulatory bar operates even where the person is otherwise qualified to act under section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Article 14 objection and the contention that the rule could not override the statute were not accepted in the present proceeding. The retired Member was therefore ineligible to appear and argue and was discharged from the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:44:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 599 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181497</link>
      <description>Rule 13E of the ITAT Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 bars a Member who retired on or after the notified date from appearing before the Tribunal, and the decisive date is the date of retirement, not the date of recruitment. The Tribunal applied the Special Bench view and held that this regulatory bar operates even where the person is otherwise qualified to act under section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Article 14 objection and the contention that the rule could not override the statute were not accepted in the present proceeding. The retired Member was therefore ineligible to appear and argue and was discharged from the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>