<?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>2025 (3) TMI 879 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767493</link>
    <description>The Calcutta HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an assessment order on grounds of limitation and absence of DIN (Document Identification Number). The court held that limitation involves mixed questions of fact and law requiring detailed consideration beyond summary affidavit proceedings. Regarding DIN absence, the court noted the technical nature of the issue and referenced that the SC had stayed a similar HC order in Tata Medical Center Trust case. The court emphasized that alternative statutory remedies were available through appellate authorities, and following Bank of Baroda precedent, declined to substitute itself as decision-making authority when efficacious alternative remedies exist under the Income Tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 06:45:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=807296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 879 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767493</link>
      <description>The Calcutta HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an assessment order on grounds of limitation and absence of DIN (Document Identification Number). The court held that limitation involves mixed questions of fact and law requiring detailed consideration beyond summary affidavit proceedings. Regarding DIN absence, the court noted the technical nature of the issue and referenced that the SC had stayed a similar HC order in Tata Medical Center Trust case. The court emphasized that alternative statutory remedies were available through appellate authorities, and following Bank of Baroda precedent, declined to substitute itself as decision-making authority when efficacious alternative remedies exist under the Income Tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>