<?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 (7) TMI 207 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362899</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the notices issued under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2004-05 lacked jurisdiction. The Court found the orders erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue&#039;s interests, quashing the notices and ruling in favor of the petitioner, a State-owned Corporation. The Court criticized the 2nd respondent&#039;s interpretation and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s arguments, ultimately allowing the writ petitions and closing the connected miscellaneous petitions without awarding costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2018 10:19:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 207 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362899</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the notices issued under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2004-05 lacked jurisdiction. The Court found the orders erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue&#039;s interests, quashing the notices and ruling in favor of the petitioner, a State-owned Corporation. The Court criticized the 2nd respondent&#039;s interpretation and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s arguments, ultimately allowing the writ petitions and closing the connected miscellaneous petitions without awarding costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362899</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>