<?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>2014 (10) TMI 945 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193719</link>
    <description>The High Court set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order dismissing the revision application challenging the rejection of an intimation under Section 143(1) for not being considered an order under Section 264. The Court directed the Commissioner to reconsider the application in line with binding decisions, emphasizing the importance of following established legal precedents to avoid causing unnecessary inconvenience to taxpayers and ensuring the proper administration of justice. No costs were awarded in the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:40:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 945 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193719</link>
      <description>The High Court set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order dismissing the revision application challenging the rejection of an intimation under Section 143(1) for not being considered an order under Section 264. The Court directed the Commissioner to reconsider the application in line with binding decisions, emphasizing the importance of following established legal precedents to avoid causing unnecessary inconvenience to taxpayers and ensuring the proper administration of justice. No costs were awarded in the matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>