<?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>1953 (12) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193957</link>
    <description>Appeal fees imposed on assessee-appellants before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were within legislative competence because the Tribunal was characterised as an administrative or quasi-judicial body, not a court, despite possessing limited civil-court-like powers. Its non-public proceedings, statutory finality provisions and limited deeming of proceedings as judicial did not alter that character. The differential fee requirement also satisfied Article 14: assessees liable to tax and the Commissioner representing the Government were not similarly situated, and the classification had a rational connection with the legislative object. The statutory appeal-fee requirement therefore remained valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:54:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (12) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193957</link>
      <description>Appeal fees imposed on assessee-appellants before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were within legislative competence because the Tribunal was characterised as an administrative or quasi-judicial body, not a court, despite possessing limited civil-court-like powers. Its non-public proceedings, statutory finality provisions and limited deeming of proceedings as judicial did not alter that character. The differential fee requirement also satisfied Article 14: assessees liable to tax and the Commissioner representing the Government were not similarly situated, and the classification had a rational connection with the legislative object. The statutory appeal-fee requirement therefore remained valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193957</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>