<?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>2006 (1) TMI 158 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55463</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee&#039;s appeals, upholding the Assessing Officer&#039;s decision that the action under section 148 was not barred by limitation as the brother, holding power of attorney, was not considered an agent under section 163. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a specific written order under section 163 to establish agency status. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the brother did not qualify as an agent under section 163(1)(c), leading to the rejection of arguments regarding taxability of his income. The Tribunal also dismissed contentions related to interest levy under sections 234A, B &amp;amp; C and the absence of tax calculation in ITNS 150.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2010 11:53:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 158 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55463</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee&#039;s appeals, upholding the Assessing Officer&#039;s decision that the action under section 148 was not barred by limitation as the brother, holding power of attorney, was not considered an agent under section 163. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a specific written order under section 163 to establish agency status. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the brother did not qualify as an agent under section 163(1)(c), leading to the rejection of arguments regarding taxability of his income. The Tribunal also dismissed contentions related to interest levy under sections 234A, B &amp;amp; C and the absence of tax calculation in ITNS 150.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>