<?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 104 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17797</link>
    <description>A certificate of fitness for appeal under section 261 of the Income-tax Act was granted because a substantial question of public importance arose on the validity of a reference under section 274(2). The Court noted the relevant chronology: assessment and penalty proceedings were completed and communicated on March 30, 1976; the letter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was sent on March 31, 1976 and received on April 1, 1976; and the statutory provision was deleted on April 1, 1976. In light of the divergent views below on whether the matter was pending before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and whether jurisdiction still existed, the case was held fit for consideration by the Supreme Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:48:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 104 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17797</link>
      <description>A certificate of fitness for appeal under section 261 of the Income-tax Act was granted because a substantial question of public importance arose on the validity of a reference under section 274(2). The Court noted the relevant chronology: assessment and penalty proceedings were completed and communicated on March 30, 1976; the letter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was sent on March 31, 1976 and received on April 1, 1976; and the statutory provision was deleted on April 1, 1976. In light of the divergent views below on whether the matter was pending before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and whether jurisdiction still existed, the case was held fit for consideration by the Supreme Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>