<?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>1992 (9) TMI 19 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20255</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the assessee&#039;s appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was maintainable despite not objecting to the draft assessment order under section 144B. The court emphasized that the right of appeal should not be denied even if objections were not filed within the specified period. Additionally, the court ruled that the draft unsigned assessment order forwarded by the Income-tax Officer under section 144B(1) was valid, stating that the absence of the officer&#039;s signature was a technical defect and did not invalidate the proceedings. The court decided in favor of the assessee on the first issue and in favor of the Revenue on the second issue, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:19:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (9) TMI 19 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20255</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the assessee&#039;s appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was maintainable despite not objecting to the draft assessment order under section 144B. The court emphasized that the right of appeal should not be denied even if objections were not filed within the specified period. Additionally, the court ruled that the draft unsigned assessment order forwarded by the Income-tax Officer under section 144B(1) was valid, stating that the absence of the officer&#039;s signature was a technical defect and did not invalidate the proceedings. The court decided in favor of the assessee on the first issue and in favor of the Revenue on the second issue, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>