<?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>2026 (7) TMI 1649 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795763</link>
    <description>Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 requires the Tribunal, where an appellant does not appear, to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. The Rules do not authorise dismissal merely because an authorised representative fails to comply with the prescribed dress standard for a virtual hearing. Dismissal on that basis was therefore impermissible, and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2026 08:27:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=913687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1649 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795763</link>
      <description>Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 requires the Tribunal, where an appellant does not appear, to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. The Rules do not authorise dismissal merely because an authorised representative fails to comply with the prescribed dress standard for a virtual hearing. Dismissal on that basis was therefore impermissible, and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>