<?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>1978 (8) TMI 16 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36680</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed due to the Tribunal&#039;s failure to provide an opportunity of being heard to the valuation officer as required under section 269L(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court remanded the entire matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of following the correct legal procedures. The Tribunal was instructed to handle the matter promptly, ideally within four weeks. No costs were awarded in relation to the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:11:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75226" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (8) TMI 16 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36680</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed due to the Tribunal&#039;s failure to provide an opportunity of being heard to the valuation officer as required under section 269L(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court remanded the entire matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of following the correct legal procedures. The Tribunal was instructed to handle the matter promptly, ideally within four weeks. No costs were awarded in relation to the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>