<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1193 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181937</link>
    <description>The High Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the hearing of the petitioner&#039;s rectification application to clarify the confusion surrounding the amount of deposit required by the Tribunal&#039;s order. The Court emphasized the need for prompt resolution to avoid further complications arising from differing interpretations of the original order, ultimately disposing of the writ petition with the directive for prompt resolution on 18-2-2010.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1193 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181937</link>
      <description>The High Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the hearing of the petitioner&#039;s rectification application to clarify the confusion surrounding the amount of deposit required by the Tribunal&#039;s order. The Court emphasized the need for prompt resolution to avoid further complications arising from differing interpretations of the original order, ultimately disposing of the writ petition with the directive for prompt resolution on 18-2-2010.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>