<?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>1982 (6) TMI 70 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57116</link>
    <description>Chapter XXA acquisition proceedings required both Gazette publication under section 269D(1) and individual service of notice on the transferor, transferee and other interested persons under section 269D(2). The statutory scheme, read with the objection period under section 269E(1) and the jurisdictional challenge bar in section 269B(3), showed that personal service was an integral condition for valid initiation. Mere publication in the Official Gazette without service on the transferee did not complete commencement of the proceedings. On that basis, the acquisition proceedings were held invalid for want of timely notice, and the order of acquisition was quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 Feb 2011 03:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=95577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (6) TMI 70 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57116</link>
      <description>Chapter XXA acquisition proceedings required both Gazette publication under section 269D(1) and individual service of notice on the transferor, transferee and other interested persons under section 269D(2). The statutory scheme, read with the objection period under section 269E(1) and the jurisdictional challenge bar in section 269B(3), showed that personal service was an integral condition for valid initiation. Mere publication in the Official Gazette without service on the transferee did not complete commencement of the proceedings. On that basis, the acquisition proceedings were held invalid for want of timely notice, and the order of acquisition was quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>