<?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>2000 (4) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14738</link>
    <description>The Calcutta High Court examined whether an Assistant Commissioner (TDS) could validly issue a notice for enquiry and documents concerning an annual TDS return under section 206, and whether the notification authorising that power respected the statutory hierarchy. The court&#039;s analysis treated the Assessing Officer definition as broad enough to include an Assistant Commissioner when properly vested by notification, but found the impugned notification conferred overly wide powers and enabled parallel action despite assessment proceedings pending before a superior authority. On that basis, the notice was quashed for lack of proper authority and excessive delegation, and the jurisdictional arrangement was directed to be aligned with the Income-tax Act hierarchy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 17:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14738</link>
      <description>The Calcutta High Court examined whether an Assistant Commissioner (TDS) could validly issue a notice for enquiry and documents concerning an annual TDS return under section 206, and whether the notification authorising that power respected the statutory hierarchy. The court&#039;s analysis treated the Assessing Officer definition as broad enough to include an Assistant Commissioner when properly vested by notification, but found the impugned notification conferred overly wide powers and enabled parallel action despite assessment proceedings pending before a superior authority. On that basis, the notice was quashed for lack of proper authority and excessive delegation, and the jurisdictional arrangement was directed to be aligned with the Income-tax Act hierarchy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14738</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>