<?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>2014 (6) TMI 674 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248770</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the authority&#039;s discretion in determining the percentage of tax to be deposited pending appeal. The petitioner, an investment company, was directed to pay 25% of the total tax demanded in two installments. The first installment was due before the appeal hearing date, with the balance to be paid subsequently. The Court granted a stay on the demand pending appeal under the revised payment terms, without imposing any costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 674 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248770</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the authority&#039;s discretion in determining the percentage of tax to be deposited pending appeal. The petitioner, an investment company, was directed to pay 25% of the total tax demanded in two installments. The first installment was due before the appeal hearing date, with the balance to be paid subsequently. The Court granted a stay on the demand pending appeal under the revised payment terms, without imposing any costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>