<?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>2006 (12) TMI 111 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13534</link>
    <description>The court quashed the authorization and the continued retention of documents, directing the respondents to return the impounded documents within two weeks. The respondents were allowed to retain copies of the documents, which the petitioner was to authenticate. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 5,000 on the respondents for their lack of bona fides and arbitrary action. The writ petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 14:15:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=52543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 111 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13534</link>
      <description>The court quashed the authorization and the continued retention of documents, directing the respondents to return the impounded documents within two weeks. The respondents were allowed to retain copies of the documents, which the petitioner was to authenticate. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 5,000 on the respondents for their lack of bona fides and arbitrary action. The writ petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>