<?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 (1) TMI 1468 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458268</link>
    <description>Reassessment proceedings were invalid because the assessing officer did not dispose of the assessee&#039;s objections by a speaking order, despite an earlier remand requiring that procedure. The CIT(A) granted relief on that basis, and the Tribunal affirmed it. As the finding that the reassessment was bad in law had attained finality on the facts, no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:13:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=773853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 1468 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458268</link>
      <description>Reassessment proceedings were invalid because the assessing officer did not dispose of the assessee&#039;s objections by a speaking order, despite an earlier remand requiring that procedure. The CIT(A) granted relief on that basis, and the Tribunal affirmed it. As the finding that the reassessment was bad in law had attained finality on the facts, no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>