<?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>2011 (2) TMI 281 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205207</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing that a quasi-judicial authority should not determine the rights or liabilities of a third party not involved in the proceedings. The Court highlighted the importance of jurisdictional boundaries and concluded that the observations made against the Mandi Parishad were unwarranted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal by the revenue, finding the question raised to be lacking in merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 281 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205207</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing that a quasi-judicial authority should not determine the rights or liabilities of a third party not involved in the proceedings. The Court highlighted the importance of jurisdictional boundaries and concluded that the observations made against the Mandi Parishad were unwarranted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal by the revenue, finding the question raised to be lacking in merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>