<?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>1940 (9) TMI 27 - Allahabad High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290005</link>
    <description>A determination of the place of assessment under Section 64(3) was treated as final and could not be challenged through the statutory appeal under Section 30 or carried to the High Court by reference under Section 66, because that reference jurisdiction extends only to questions of law arising from a competent appellate order. The proviso to Section 64(3) was held satisfied where the assessee was given an opportunity to place views before the Commissioner, including by affidavit; no further personal hearing or fresh notice after consultation between Commissioners was required. The jurisdictional challenge was therefore not entertainable, and the application was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 1940 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2020 15:48:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621341" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1940 (9) TMI 27 - Allahabad High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290005</link>
      <description>A determination of the place of assessment under Section 64(3) was treated as final and could not be challenged through the statutory appeal under Section 30 or carried to the High Court by reference under Section 66, because that reference jurisdiction extends only to questions of law arising from a competent appellate order. The proviso to Section 64(3) was held satisfied where the assessee was given an opportunity to place views before the Commissioner, including by affidavit; no further personal hearing or fresh notice after consultation between Commissioners was required. The jurisdictional challenge was therefore not entertainable, and the application was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 1940 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>