<?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>2007 (10) TMI 384 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77721</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, sustaining the preliminary objection raised by the assessee&#039;s counsel. The court held that since all relevant orders were passed in Bangalore, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana did not have jurisdiction over the matter. The court directed the Revenue to file the appeals before the appropriate court with jurisdiction, without delving into the merits of the controversy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 384 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77721</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, sustaining the preliminary objection raised by the assessee&#039;s counsel. The court held that since all relevant orders were passed in Bangalore, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana did not have jurisdiction over the matter. The court directed the Revenue to file the appeals before the appropriate court with jurisdiction, without delving into the merits of the controversy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77721</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>