<?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>1998 (10) TMI 512 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153302</link>
    <description>Exemption from income-tax liability sought for a sick industrial company&#039;s rehabilitation scheme must be treated as part of the scheme-making process under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, because it involves a Central Government fiscal sacrifice. Section 32 gives overriding effect only to the extent of inconsistency and does not dispense with the consent procedure under Section 19. The Board was therefore required to formulate and circulate the exemption proposal within the draft scheme for consent, rather than leaving it to a separate approach to income-tax authorities. Clauses making relief dependent on separate consent were held invalid and were removed, with the exemption issue remitted for reconsideration under the statutory rehabilitation procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:34:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170338" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 512 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153302</link>
      <description>Exemption from income-tax liability sought for a sick industrial company&#039;s rehabilitation scheme must be treated as part of the scheme-making process under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, because it involves a Central Government fiscal sacrifice. Section 32 gives overriding effect only to the extent of inconsistency and does not dispense with the consent procedure under Section 19. The Board was therefore required to formulate and circulate the exemption proposal within the draft scheme for consent, rather than leaving it to a separate approach to income-tax authorities. Clauses making relief dependent on separate consent were held invalid and were removed, with the exemption issue remitted for reconsideration under the statutory rehabilitation procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>