<?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>2021 (12) TMI 457 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415691</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), ruling that the assessment order made in the name of a non-existent company was void and not curable under section 292B of the Income-tax Act. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the Assessing Officer failed to comply with directions under section 264, repeating the error and rendering the assessment invalid. The assessment order was quashed due to being issued in the name of a non-existent entity, with no legal infirmity found in the Ld. CIT(A)&#039;s findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2021 09:27:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 457 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415691</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), ruling that the assessment order made in the name of a non-existent company was void and not curable under section 292B of the Income-tax Act. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the Assessing Officer failed to comply with directions under section 264, repeating the error and rendering the assessment invalid. The assessment order was quashed due to being issued in the name of a non-existent entity, with no legal infirmity found in the Ld. CIT(A)&#039;s findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>