<?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>2005 (10) TMI 34 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9349</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside previous orders that rejected their refund application for TDS. It held that Circular No. 769 should govern the refund claim made before the issuance of Circular No. 790. The court determined that Circular No. 790 had only prospective application, emphasizing the vested rights created by Circular No. 769 for deductors to claim refunds. The petitioners were declared entitled to the refund of the TDS amount, and the court allowed the petition with no costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48372" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 34 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9349</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside previous orders that rejected their refund application for TDS. It held that Circular No. 769 should govern the refund claim made before the issuance of Circular No. 790. The court determined that Circular No. 790 had only prospective application, emphasizing the vested rights created by Circular No. 769 for deductors to claim refunds. The petitioners were declared entitled to the refund of the TDS amount, and the court allowed the petition with no costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>