<?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>2016 (4) TMI 865 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326751</link>
    <description>The Tribunal invalidated the reassessment orders for both assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 due to the failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of the notice under section 143(2) for the validity of reassessment proceedings, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument that the defect was curable under section 292BB, holding that the reassessment orders remained invalid. Consequently, the other issues raised by the assessee, including the entitlement to exemption under section 10(20) and the classification of repair expenditure, were not addressed, rendering them moot.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2016 10:55:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 865 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326751</link>
      <description>The Tribunal invalidated the reassessment orders for both assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 due to the failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of the notice under section 143(2) for the validity of reassessment proceedings, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument that the defect was curable under section 292BB, holding that the reassessment orders remained invalid. Consequently, the other issues raised by the assessee, including the entitlement to exemption under section 10(20) and the classification of repair expenditure, were not addressed, rendering them moot.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>