<?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>1984 (3) TMI 267 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100303</link>
    <description>Interest levied under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act against a company in liquidation was held unenforceable because prior court sanction under section 446(2) of the Companies Act had not been obtained. As compliance with that mandatory requirement was absent, the levy could not be sustained against the official liquidator, and the demand notices were liable to be cancelled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:16:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (3) TMI 267 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100303</link>
      <description>Interest levied under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act against a company in liquidation was held unenforceable because prior court sanction under section 446(2) of the Companies Act had not been obtained. As compliance with that mandatory requirement was absent, the levy could not be sustained against the official liquidator, and the demand notices were liable to be cancelled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>