<?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 (1) TMI 1342 - ITAT, BENCH “D”, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197203</link>
    <description>Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act was held invalid where the revisionary notice was issued and signed by an Assistant Commissioner instead of the Commissioner, since the statutory power must be exercised by the competent authority after examining the record and hearing the assessee. The defect in the initiating notice was treated as going to the root of jurisdiction, and the revisionary order was quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Dec 2017 08:41:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1342 - ITAT, BENCH “D”, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197203</link>
      <description>Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act was held invalid where the revisionary notice was issued and signed by an Assistant Commissioner instead of the Commissioner, since the statutory power must be exercised by the competent authority after examining the record and hearing the assessee. The defect in the initiating notice was treated as going to the root of jurisdiction, and the revisionary order was quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>