<?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>2004 (4) TMI 52 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11039</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ application challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax on the cost of construction. It was held that the Assessing Officer had the authority to issue a commission for local inspection under section 131(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, despite limitations on referring to the Valuation Officer for determining construction costs during assessment, as clarified by the Supreme Court judgment and statutory provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 52 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11039</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ application challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax on the cost of construction. It was held that the Assessing Officer had the authority to issue a commission for local inspection under section 131(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, despite limitations on referring to the Valuation Officer for determining construction costs during assessment, as clarified by the Supreme Court judgment and statutory provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>