<?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>2018 (6) TMI 101 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361274</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the writ petition, modifying the order to require the petitioner to deposit 40% of the total enforceable demand, with deductions for the amount already paid, and furnish suitable security for another 35% within four weeks. Revocation of notices under Section 226(3) was subject to this payment, with a disclaimer that observations in the petition should not be treated as precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2019 16:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 101 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361274</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the writ petition, modifying the order to require the petitioner to deposit 40% of the total enforceable demand, with deductions for the amount already paid, and furnish suitable security for another 35% within four weeks. Revocation of notices under Section 226(3) was subject to this payment, with a disclaimer that observations in the petition should not be treated as precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>