<?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>2013 (4) TMI 912 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277903</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside as it failed to address allegations of fraud and relevant legal precedents. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, with directions to provide both parties a reasonable opportunity to substantiate and rebut the allegations. Respondents were ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs to the Prime Minister&#039;s Relief Fund for omissions and commissions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2019 16:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=549812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 912 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277903</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside as it failed to address allegations of fraud and relevant legal precedents. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, with directions to provide both parties a reasonable opportunity to substantiate and rebut the allegations. Respondents were ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs to the Prime Minister&#039;s Relief Fund for omissions and commissions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277903</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>