<?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 (2) TMI 117 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18543</link>
    <description>Rectification proceedings could not be used to consider facts that were not already before the Tribunal in the appeal; the rectification order only corrected an error in the factual position and did not bring in any new material. As no fresh facts were introduced, the referred question became academic. The issue was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:31:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 117 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18543</link>
      <description>Rectification proceedings could not be used to consider facts that were not already before the Tribunal in the appeal; the rectification order only corrected an error in the factual position and did not bring in any new material. As no fresh facts were introduced, the referred question became academic. The issue was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>