<?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>1998 (3) TMI 31 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15103</link>
    <description>The court quashed the impugned order, finding that the Commissioner had not fairly, justly, or bona fide exercised his discretion under section 273A. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits, with a direction to pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks. The writ petition was ordered accordingly, with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:00:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 31 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15103</link>
      <description>The court quashed the impugned order, finding that the Commissioner had not fairly, justly, or bona fide exercised his discretion under section 273A. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits, with a direction to pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks. The writ petition was ordered accordingly, with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>