<?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>2000 (2) TMI 20 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12494</link>
    <description>Leave to compound an offence under section 276CC(i) of the Income-tax Act was granted because the competent income-tax authority had agreed to compounding on payment of the stipulated fee, and the amount was paid. Applying section 279(2), the Court treated the request as in accordance with law and held that the conviction and sentence were liable to be set aside as a consequence of the compounding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 20 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12494</link>
      <description>Leave to compound an offence under section 276CC(i) of the Income-tax Act was granted because the competent income-tax authority had agreed to compounding on payment of the stipulated fee, and the amount was paid. Applying section 279(2), the Court treated the request as in accordance with law and held that the conviction and sentence were liable to be set aside as a consequence of the compounding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>