<?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>2017 (12) TMI 686 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352417</link>
    <description>Rejection of exemption claimed for payments to sub-contractors under Rule 8(5)(c) was set aside because the assessing authority had not considered the objections in the proper perspective or given adequate reasons. The High Court held that the claim required fresh examination of the records relating to the sub-contractors, and the matter was therefore remanded for de novo consideration by a speaking order after affording personal hearing. The assessee succeeded on this issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:24:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 686 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352417</link>
      <description>Rejection of exemption claimed for payments to sub-contractors under Rule 8(5)(c) was set aside because the assessing authority had not considered the objections in the proper perspective or given adequate reasons. The High Court held that the claim required fresh examination of the records relating to the sub-contractors, and the matter was therefore remanded for de novo consideration by a speaking order after affording personal hearing. The assessee succeeded on this issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352417</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>