<?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 (7) TMI 45 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249008</link>
    <description>Availability of an alternate statutory appeal does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction where the assessee alleges breach of natural justice and non-consideration of its reply. The court noted that the authority failed to deal with the petitioner&#039;s explanation and supporting material before proceeding. Liability as an assessee in default under section 201 also depends on the proviso protecting a deductor where the resident recipient has filed returns, included the sum, and paid tax due. Because that material was not examined, the default finding, demand, and attachment could not be sustained and the matter required fresh consideration after a fair hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 45 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249008</link>
      <description>Availability of an alternate statutory appeal does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction where the assessee alleges breach of natural justice and non-consideration of its reply. The court noted that the authority failed to deal with the petitioner&#039;s explanation and supporting material before proceeding. Liability as an assessee in default under section 201 also depends on the proviso protecting a deductor where the resident recipient has filed returns, included the sum, and paid tax due. Because that material was not examined, the default finding, demand, and attachment could not be sustained and the matter required fresh consideration after a fair hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>