<?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 (10) TMI 809 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368843</link>
    <description>The court held that the Income Tax Department is not obligated to refund the security transaction tax amount to the petitioners as it was collected and remitted by the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). The petitioners were advised to seek recourse against BSE directly for the shortfall amount. The court dismissed the writ petition, clarifying that the petitioners have alternative remedies available to recover the sum from BSE, and that the Income Tax Department is not liable to refund the tax amount to the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2018 07:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 809 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368843</link>
      <description>The court held that the Income Tax Department is not obligated to refund the security transaction tax amount to the petitioners as it was collected and remitted by the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). The petitioners were advised to seek recourse against BSE directly for the shortfall amount. The court dismissed the writ petition, clarifying that the petitioners have alternative remedies available to recover the sum from BSE, and that the Income Tax Department is not liable to refund the tax amount to the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>