<?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>2015 (9) TMI 750 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264082</link>
    <description>An operative appellate order deleting the underlying tax demand meant the revenue could not refuse refund of the amount adjusted against that demand while the order remained unstayed and un-set aside. The Court treated the earlier legal position as continuing for later assessment years unless the provision was amended or substituted, and directed the tax authorities to reconsider the refund applications. If the demand had in fact been deleted, the adjusted amount had to be refunded with statutory interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 750 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264082</link>
      <description>An operative appellate order deleting the underlying tax demand meant the revenue could not refuse refund of the amount adjusted against that demand while the order remained unstayed and un-set aside. The Court treated the earlier legal position as continuing for later assessment years unless the provision was amended or substituted, and directed the tax authorities to reconsider the refund applications. If the demand had in fact been deleted, the adjusted amount had to be refunded with statutory interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>