<?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>1921 (3) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276894</link>
    <description>Original jurisdiction in revenue matters was held to be barred by the relevant constitutional provision, and framing the request under the Specific Relief Act did not avoid that restriction. Statutory immunity for acts done in good faith under the income tax law also extended to omissions, so proceedings against the revenue officer were prohibited absent any showing of bad faith. On the reference power, the revenue authority had discretion to refuse a reference if satisfied that the application was frivolous or that a reference was unnecessary; &quot;unnecessary&quot; was construed broadly as not reasonably required for disposal of the case. The Court could not substitute its own view by mandamus-like relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1921 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:08:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1921 (3) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276894</link>
      <description>Original jurisdiction in revenue matters was held to be barred by the relevant constitutional provision, and framing the request under the Specific Relief Act did not avoid that restriction. Statutory immunity for acts done in good faith under the income tax law also extended to omissions, so proceedings against the revenue officer were prohibited absent any showing of bad faith. On the reference power, the revenue authority had discretion to refuse a reference if satisfied that the application was frivolous or that a reference was unnecessary; &quot;unnecessary&quot; was construed broadly as not reasonably required for disposal of the case. The Court could not substitute its own view by mandamus-like relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1921 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276894</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>