<?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 (10) TMI 179 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759580</link>
    <description>A revision application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act was filed within one year from communication of the assessment order, so it was within limitation. Once limitation was satisfied, the revisional authority was bound to consider the request on merits and exercise its revisional power; rejecting it without such examination was not in accordance with law. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2024 08:19:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 179 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759580</link>
      <description>A revision application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act was filed within one year from communication of the assessment order, so it was within limitation. Once limitation was satisfied, the revisional authority was bound to consider the request on merits and exercise its revisional power; rejecting it without such examination was not in accordance with law. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>