<?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 1230 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460797</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s condonation of delay and remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) was examined in the context of pending settlement proceedings and a jurisdictional objection raised in miscellaneous applications. The Court noted that the Tribunal had followed a coordinate bench decision, that the assessee&#039;s matters were factually similar to earlier group cases, and that the jurisdictional challenge and objection to the appealability of the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order were raised only at the miscellaneous stage. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the merits and had disposed of the appeals as not maintainable because of the settlement proceedings, the remand did not disclose any mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2025 16:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=800101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 1230 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460797</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s condonation of delay and remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) was examined in the context of pending settlement proceedings and a jurisdictional objection raised in miscellaneous applications. The Court noted that the Tribunal had followed a coordinate bench decision, that the assessee&#039;s matters were factually similar to earlier group cases, and that the jurisdictional challenge and objection to the appealability of the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order were raised only at the miscellaneous stage. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the merits and had disposed of the appeals as not maintainable because of the settlement proceedings, the remand did not disclose any mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>