<?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>1996 (7) TMI 20 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16995</link>
    <description>Refusal of continuation of a firm&#039;s registration could not be sustained without the 14 days&#039; statutory notice required for continuation, cancellation or refusal under section 186(2) of the Income-tax Act. The application was for continuation of an existing registration, not fresh registration, so section 185(5) did not apply. On that basis, the High Court held the refusal unsustainable and decided the issue in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:12:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 20 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16995</link>
      <description>Refusal of continuation of a firm&#039;s registration could not be sustained without the 14 days&#039; statutory notice required for continuation, cancellation or refusal under section 186(2) of the Income-tax Act. The application was for continuation of an existing registration, not fresh registration, so section 185(5) did not apply. On that basis, the High Court held the refusal unsustainable and decided the issue in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16995</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>