<?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>2018 (12) TMI 1653 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281284</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application, recalling the order dated 18.08.2017 for AY 2002-03 and directing a fresh hearing before a regular Bench. The decision was based on the failure to consider the retrospective nature of the amendment to Explanation 1 to section 115JB and the lack of opportunity for the Ld. counsel to present arguments regarding relevant decisions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of rectifying errors and ensuring due process in tax matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2019 19:33:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=574810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1653 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281284</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application, recalling the order dated 18.08.2017 for AY 2002-03 and directing a fresh hearing before a regular Bench. The decision was based on the failure to consider the retrospective nature of the amendment to Explanation 1 to section 115JB and the lack of opportunity for the Ld. counsel to present arguments regarding relevant decisions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of rectifying errors and ensuring due process in tax matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>