<?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 (2) TMI 1377 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308821</link>
    <description>A jurisdictional objection to an assessment framed on a non-existent amalgamating company can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal when the relevant facts are already on record, and the additional ground was admitted. An assessment made in the name of a company that had ceased to exist on amalgamation is a substantive illegality and void in law; the curative mistake provision and succession rules did not validate it, so the assessment was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 08:17:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=720508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 1377 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308821</link>
      <description>A jurisdictional objection to an assessment framed on a non-existent amalgamating company can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal when the relevant facts are already on record, and the additional ground was admitted. An assessment made in the name of a company that had ceased to exist on amalgamation is a substantive illegality and void in law; the curative mistake provision and succession rules did not validate it, so the assessment was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>