<?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>2006 (2) TMI 96 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9652</link>
    <description>Transfer of income-tax cases under section 127 was upheld because the authority recorded relevant reasons showing common business links, family control, and the need for coordinated investigation after the search action. The Court treated public interest and effective centralised inquiry as valid grounds for transfer, and held that the sufficiency of those reasons is not open to writ scrutiny unless mala fides, arbitrariness, bias, or manifest irrelevance are shown. The Department was also not required to disclose the entire material relied upon at the initial stage. The challenge to the transfer to Delhi was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 96 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9652</link>
      <description>Transfer of income-tax cases under section 127 was upheld because the authority recorded relevant reasons showing common business links, family control, and the need for coordinated investigation after the search action. The Court treated public interest and effective centralised inquiry as valid grounds for transfer, and held that the sufficiency of those reasons is not open to writ scrutiny unless mala fides, arbitrariness, bias, or manifest irrelevance are shown. The Department was also not required to disclose the entire material relied upon at the initial stage. The challenge to the transfer to Delhi was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>