<?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 (2) TMI 52 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11220</link>
    <description>The court held that the Joint Commissioner is not required to provide a hearing to the assessee before granting previous approval under section 158BG for making an assessment order for a block period. It emphasized that the previous approval is an administrative matter and does not affect the rights of the assessee. The court ruled against the assessee on this issue. Additionally, the court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to add a certain amount to the appellant&#039;s income without a hearing, as the finding was based on the appellant&#039;s admission. The court dismissed the appeal on the issue of liability for income on account of deficit stock, noting it was purely factual and lacked legal questions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50238" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 52 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11220</link>
      <description>The court held that the Joint Commissioner is not required to provide a hearing to the assessee before granting previous approval under section 158BG for making an assessment order for a block period. It emphasized that the previous approval is an administrative matter and does not affect the rights of the assessee. The court ruled against the assessee on this issue. Additionally, the court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to add a certain amount to the appellant&#039;s income without a hearing, as the finding was based on the appellant&#039;s admission. The court dismissed the appeal on the issue of liability for income on account of deficit stock, noting it was purely factual and lacked legal questions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>