<?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 (2) TMI 579 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161200</link>
    <description>The High Court partially allowed the revision by setting aside the reduced penalty imposed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The court dismissed the revision in other aspects, emphasizing that the penalty retention at 50% was unwarranted based on the facts presented. The judgment concluded without costs awarded to either party, considering the circumstances of the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:19:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 579 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161200</link>
      <description>The High Court partially allowed the revision by setting aside the reduced penalty imposed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The court dismissed the revision in other aspects, emphasizing that the penalty retention at 50% was unwarranted based on the facts presented. The judgment concluded without costs awarded to either party, considering the circumstances of the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>