<?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>2022 (4) TMI 899 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421233</link>
    <description>An income-tax appeal filed by a company was required to be signed and verified by a person duly authorised under the statutory scheme and prescribed rules. The record did not show that the General Manager who signed the appeal held valid authority, and the company also failed to establish proper authorisation through the permitted mechanism. As the mandatory filing requirements were not satisfied, the appeal was defective and not maintainable. It was therefore dismissed in limine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:31:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=676554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 899 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421233</link>
      <description>An income-tax appeal filed by a company was required to be signed and verified by a person duly authorised under the statutory scheme and prescribed rules. The record did not show that the General Manager who signed the appeal held valid authority, and the company also failed to establish proper authorisation through the permitted mechanism. As the mandatory filing requirements were not satisfied, the appeal was defective and not maintainable. It was therefore dismissed in limine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>