<?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>2005 (4) TMI 540 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123842</link>
    <description>Leave to appeal was treated as a mandatory precondition where the applicant had to show prejudice before the appeal could be examined on merits. The Tribunal could not reject the appeal without first deciding the prayer for leave to file it. Because that procedural step was omitted, the impugned order could not stand and was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the leave application on its own merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:36:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160802" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 540 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123842</link>
      <description>Leave to appeal was treated as a mandatory precondition where the applicant had to show prejudice before the appeal could be examined on merits. The Tribunal could not reject the appeal without first deciding the prayer for leave to file it. Because that procedural step was omitted, the impugned order could not stand and was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the leave application on its own merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>