<?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>2019 (2) TMI 1143 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375516</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Commissioner lacked the authority to entertain the revision application. It emphasized the Settlement Commission&#039;s exclusive jurisdiction once a settlement application is accepted, limiting the Assessing Officer&#039;s role to implementing the Commission&#039;s directives. The court highlighted the petitioner&#039;s failure to specify the order for revision and insufficient justification for the delay in filing the petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=558974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 1143 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375516</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Commissioner lacked the authority to entertain the revision application. It emphasized the Settlement Commission&#039;s exclusive jurisdiction once a settlement application is accepted, limiting the Assessing Officer&#039;s role to implementing the Commission&#039;s directives. The court highlighted the petitioner&#039;s failure to specify the order for revision and insufficient justification for the delay in filing the petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375516</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>