<?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>1990 (9) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22623</link>
    <description>A section 263 notice under the Income-tax Act generally does not justify writ interference where the assessee can file an explanation in response and, if an adverse revisional order is later passed, pursue the statutory appeal to the ITAT. The note also records that section 263(2) imposes a limitation period, so if no order is passed within the prescribed time, the notice lapses. On that basis, writ relief was not warranted and the challenge was not entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22623</link>
      <description>A section 263 notice under the Income-tax Act generally does not justify writ interference where the assessee can file an explanation in response and, if an adverse revisional order is later passed, pursue the statutory appeal to the ITAT. The note also records that section 263(2) imposes a limitation period, so if no order is passed within the prescribed time, the notice lapses. On that basis, writ relief was not warranted and the challenge was not entertained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>