<?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>2016 (6) TMI 1273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197315</link>
    <description>A binding precedent controlled the assessment: where the relevant notification did not require production of C/D declaration forms, concessional tax could not be denied on that ground. The impugned assessment, being inconsistent with that view, was unsustainable and had to be reconsidered. The proper course was to reopen the assessment and redo it for the relevant year in line with the earlier decision, so the denial of the concessional rate could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2018 18:12:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=502405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197315</link>
      <description>A binding precedent controlled the assessment: where the relevant notification did not require production of C/D declaration forms, concessional tax could not be denied on that ground. The impugned assessment, being inconsistent with that view, was unsustainable and had to be reconsidered. The proper course was to reopen the assessment and redo it for the relevant year in line with the earlier decision, so the denial of the concessional rate could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>