<?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>2024 (4) TMI 1142 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456236</link>
    <description>Section 153D requires prior approval of the Joint Commissioner before completion of specified assessments or reassessments, but the approval need not be a detailed order if the record shows consideration of the materials placed before the authority. The Court declined to presume absence of application of mind merely because the approval was brief, and relied on the presumption of regular official action under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. It also noted that the matter had been remanded for fresh adjudication with liberty to raise all contentions and adduce evidence, so no prejudice was established. The approval was treated as valid and no substantial question of law was found to arise.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:19:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=759404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 1142 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456236</link>
      <description>Section 153D requires prior approval of the Joint Commissioner before completion of specified assessments or reassessments, but the approval need not be a detailed order if the record shows consideration of the materials placed before the authority. The Court declined to presume absence of application of mind merely because the approval was brief, and relied on the presumption of regular official action under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. It also noted that the matter had been remanded for fresh adjudication with liberty to raise all contentions and adduce evidence, so no prejudice was established. The approval was treated as valid and no substantial question of law was found to arise.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>