<?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 (12) TMI 262 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253918</link>
    <description>The High Court remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need to consider both Section 56(2)(vii) and Section 64(2) provisions regarding cash gifts blended with the HUF account. The Court found that the lower authorities had not adequately addressed the appellant&#039;s legal plea, leading to prejudice. The judgment highlighted the importance of a thorough analysis and allowed the appeal without imposing costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2014 06:31:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 262 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253918</link>
      <description>The High Court remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need to consider both Section 56(2)(vii) and Section 64(2) provisions regarding cash gifts blended with the HUF account. The Court found that the lower authorities had not adequately addressed the appellant&#039;s legal plea, leading to prejudice. The judgment highlighted the importance of a thorough analysis and allowed the appeal without imposing costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>