<?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>2003 (6) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11268</link>
    <description>Section 220(6) gives the assessing authority discretion to treat an assessee as not in default in respect of a disputed demand after the payment time has expired, but that discretion must be exercised judiciously and with reasons. A rejection order that gives no reasons and does not show such an exercise is unsustainable. On that basis, the rejection was set aside, the assessee was directed not to be treated as in default pending the appeal, and the attachment was kept in abeyance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11268</link>
      <description>Section 220(6) gives the assessing authority discretion to treat an assessee as not in default in respect of a disputed demand after the payment time has expired, but that discretion must be exercised judiciously and with reasons. A rejection order that gives no reasons and does not show such an exercise is unsustainable. On that basis, the rejection was set aside, the assessee was directed not to be treated as in default pending the appeal, and the attachment was kept in abeyance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>