<?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>1998 (3) TMI 87 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16308</link>
    <description>The High Court rejected the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the annulment of an assessment by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that while the assessment proceedings may have been legally flawed due to lack of notice, they were not void to the extent of warranting annulment. The Court emphasized that the lack of notice rendered the assessments defective but not necessarily void, ultimately upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision and dismissing the application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:04:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 87 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16308</link>
      <description>The High Court rejected the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the annulment of an assessment by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that while the assessment proceedings may have been legally flawed due to lack of notice, they were not void to the extent of warranting annulment. The Court emphasized that the lack of notice rendered the assessments defective but not necessarily void, ultimately upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision and dismissing the application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16308</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>