<?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>2008 (2) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3692</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside because it proceeded on the mistaken premise that the contract was not on record, even though the contract had been placed before it. As the omission to consider that document went to the basis of the decision, the matter required fresh examination on the existing materials. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the appeal with reference to the contract and all other available grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43041" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3692</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside because it proceeded on the mistaken premise that the contract was not on record, even though the contract had been placed before it. As the omission to consider that document went to the basis of the decision, the matter required fresh examination on the existing materials. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the appeal with reference to the contract and all other available grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>