<?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>2010 (3) TMI 769 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204858</link>
    <description>The High Court directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner&#039;s appeal challenging the notice of demand on merits and in accordance with the law within eight weeks, without insisting on the payment of 50% of the demand. The petitioner was required to cooperate fully in the proceedings before the first respondent. The writ petition was allowed without imposing any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 769 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204858</link>
      <description>The High Court directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner&#039;s appeal challenging the notice of demand on merits and in accordance with the law within eight weeks, without insisting on the payment of 50% of the demand. The petitioner was required to cooperate fully in the proceedings before the first respondent. The writ petition was allowed without imposing any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>