<?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>1984 (9) TMI 13 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26993</link>
    <description>A statutory assessment order affecting an assessee&#039;s rights does not become effective for revisional action until it is communicated to the assessee. On that basis, the Commissioner could not validly invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, to set aside an unserved assessment order, because there was no operative order in existence when proceedings were initiated. The court also rejected the attempt to characterise the action as reassessment, holding that the statutory limits of the power invoked did not permit that treatment. The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:23:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 13 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26993</link>
      <description>A statutory assessment order affecting an assessee&#039;s rights does not become effective for revisional action until it is communicated to the assessee. On that basis, the Commissioner could not validly invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, to set aside an unserved assessment order, because there was no operative order in existence when proceedings were initiated. The court also rejected the attempt to characterise the action as reassessment, holding that the statutory limits of the power invoked did not permit that treatment. The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>