<?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 (5) TMI 1954 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285411</link>
    <description>A miscellaneous petition seeking recall of an ITAT order was dismissed as not maintainable because it was time barred, the order sought to be recalled was not annexed, and the defect notice issued by the Registry was not complied with. The Tribunal also noted that the petitioner did not appear despite valid service of notice. On these combined grounds of delay, filing defects, and non-prosecution, the petition was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2020 18:27:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1954 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285411</link>
      <description>A miscellaneous petition seeking recall of an ITAT order was dismissed as not maintainable because it was time barred, the order sought to be recalled was not annexed, and the defect notice issued by the Registry was not complied with. The Tribunal also noted that the petitioner did not appear despite valid service of notice. On these combined grounds of delay, filing defects, and non-prosecution, the petition was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>