<?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 (8) TMI 1300 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196201</link>
    <description>Section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act permits transfer of income-tax cases without prior hearing where affording notice is not possible, but it still requires recorded reasons in every case. The transfer here was made in the context of search proceedings and centralized investigation of a group for coordinated assessment at one place, which was treated as a valid basis for centralisation. The order disclosed the reason for transfer, and the assessee&#039;s failure to promptly object when the transferee officer first acted further supported the challenge&#039;s rejection. The consequential jurisdictional objection therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:11:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1300 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196201</link>
      <description>Section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act permits transfer of income-tax cases without prior hearing where affording notice is not possible, but it still requires recorded reasons in every case. The transfer here was made in the context of search proceedings and centralized investigation of a group for coordinated assessment at one place, which was treated as a valid basis for centralisation. The order disclosed the reason for transfer, and the assessee&#039;s failure to promptly object when the transferee officer first acted further supported the challenge&#039;s rejection. The consequential jurisdictional objection therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>