<?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 (9) TMI 77 - HIMACHAL PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17856</link>
    <description>Section 148 reassessment notice was examined on whether sanction under section 151(2) was validly granted by an Additional Commissioner after the Finance Act, 1994 amendment to section 2(19A). The amended definition of &quot;Deputy Commissioner&quot; included an Additional Commissioner appointed under section 117(1), so the Additional Commissioner was competent on 31 October 1995 to accord the required sanction. The objection that the earlier assessment period deprived him of that authority was rejected. Limitation was treated as a matter for the assessing authorities and not as a ground for writ interference against the notice. The notice was therefore upheld and the writ challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:36:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56856" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 77 - HIMACHAL PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17856</link>
      <description>Section 148 reassessment notice was examined on whether sanction under section 151(2) was validly granted by an Additional Commissioner after the Finance Act, 1994 amendment to section 2(19A). The amended definition of &quot;Deputy Commissioner&quot; included an Additional Commissioner appointed under section 117(1), so the Additional Commissioner was competent on 31 October 1995 to accord the required sanction. The objection that the earlier assessment period deprived him of that authority was rejected. Limitation was treated as a matter for the assessing authorities and not as a ground for writ interference against the notice. The notice was therefore upheld and the writ challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>