<?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>1943 (9) TMI 14 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277224</link>
    <description>Whether an appellate order rejecting admission of an appeal on preliminary grounds constitutes an order under Section 31 was addressed: the analysis applies the statutory scheme to treat a determination that no appeal lies as an exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 31, thereby engaging the referenceable question of law under Section 66. The note emphasises that summary refusal to admit an appeal where factual issues (for example, non-receipt of a demand notice) affect prescribed form compliance is procedurally improper; the appropriate response is inquiry or adjournment rather than capricious denial. The operative effect is that such orders should be treated as Section 31 orders and not summarily dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1943 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1943 (9) TMI 14 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277224</link>
      <description>Whether an appellate order rejecting admission of an appeal on preliminary grounds constitutes an order under Section 31 was addressed: the analysis applies the statutory scheme to treat a determination that no appeal lies as an exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 31, thereby engaging the referenceable question of law under Section 66. The note emphasises that summary refusal to admit an appeal where factual issues (for example, non-receipt of a demand notice) affect prescribed form compliance is procedurally improper; the appropriate response is inquiry or adjournment rather than capricious denial. The operative effect is that such orders should be treated as Section 31 orders and not summarily dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1943 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>