<?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 67 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17525</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the Commissioner of Income-tax did not have jurisdiction to revise an assessment order that had already been rectified and merged into another order. The Court emphasized that revising a non-existent order is impermissible under the law, citing legal precedents. The decision favored the assessee, with no costs awarded, and directed the transmission of the order to the Tribunal for further proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:19:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 67 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17525</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the Commissioner of Income-tax did not have jurisdiction to revise an assessment order that had already been rectified and merged into another order. The Court emphasized that revising a non-existent order is impermissible under the law, citing legal precedents. The decision favored the assessee, with no costs awarded, and directed the transmission of the order to the Tribunal for further proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>