https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32901 HC held that for AY 1995-96, the Explanation to s.143(1), which remained in force until 1.6.1999, deemed an intimation under s.143(1) or 143(1B) to be an order for purposes of ss.246 and 264, thereby making an appeal maintainable. Since the assessment year fell within this period, the assessee's appeal against the intimation was valid. HC rejected the Revenue's contrary stand, noting its earlier acceptance of maintainability and holding that it could not now resile. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee, the impugned order was quashed, and the appeal was restored to CIT(A) for decision on merits. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jul 2026 12:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32901 HC held that for AY 1995-96, the Explanation to s.143(1), which remained in force until 1.6.1999, deemed an intimation under s.143(1) or 143(1B) to be an order for purposes of ss.246 and 264, thereby making an appeal maintainable. Since the assessment year fell within this period, the assessee's appeal against the intimation was valid. HC rejected the Revenue's contrary stand, noting its earlier acceptance of maintainability and holding that it could not now resile. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee, the impugned order was quashed, and the appeal was restored to CIT(A) for decision on merits. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32901