<?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>1988 (12) TMI 78 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24347</link>
    <description>A writ court will not interfere with a show-cause notice for rectification under the Income-tax Act unless the notice is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or an abuse of process. Here, the notice proposed rectification on the basis of an alleged mistake apparent from the record, but the assessee had an opportunity to respond and the issues required examination of the transfer arrangement and supporting materials. As the statutory process was still at a preliminary stage and no clear jurisdictional defect was shown, judicial interference was unwarranted. The writ petitions were therefore rejected as premature, and the rectification proceedings were allowed to continue in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:40:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (12) TMI 78 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24347</link>
      <description>A writ court will not interfere with a show-cause notice for rectification under the Income-tax Act unless the notice is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or an abuse of process. Here, the notice proposed rectification on the basis of an alleged mistake apparent from the record, but the assessee had an opportunity to respond and the issues required examination of the transfer arrangement and supporting materials. As the statutory process was still at a preliminary stage and no clear jurisdictional defect was shown, judicial interference was unwarranted. The writ petitions were therefore rejected as premature, and the rectification proceedings were allowed to continue in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24347</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>