<?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 (11) TMI 223 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252906</link>
    <description>The court concluded that the issues raised by the petitioner involved mixed questions of fact and law, which could not be adjudicated in a Writ Petition. The petitioner was directed to file a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, and the Revisional Authority was to consider the petition on merits. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2014 22:05:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 223 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252906</link>
      <description>The court concluded that the issues raised by the petitioner involved mixed questions of fact and law, which could not be adjudicated in a Writ Petition. The petitioner was directed to file a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, and the Revisional Authority was to consider the petition on merits. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>