<?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>1987 (3) TMI 76 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25627</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the question of registration under section 184(7) was appealable before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Additionally, the court affirmed that a defect in the declaration filed by the partners of the firm could be rectified, leading to a ruling in favor of the assessee on both issues. The court awarded costs to the assessee and directed the Revenue to pay a hearing fee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:43:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 76 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25627</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the question of registration under section 184(7) was appealable before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Additionally, the court affirmed that a defect in the declaration filed by the partners of the firm could be rectified, leading to a ruling in favor of the assessee on both issues. The court awarded costs to the assessee and directed the Revenue to pay a hearing fee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>