<?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>1997 (6) TMI 12 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17275</link>
    <description>A validating amendment to section 35 read with section 13 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1985 retrospectively cured the jurisdictional defect on which the Tribunal had set aside revisional orders, making that earlier view ineffective and the revisional orders valid and enforceable. After that defect was removed, the petitioner remained entitled to have the other grounds in the appeals considered by the Tribunal, because those issues had not been adjudicated when the appeals were allowed only on jurisdiction. The appeals were therefore preservable for fresh consideration on the remaining points, while the jurisdiction question stood resolved by the validating provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:49:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 12 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17275</link>
      <description>A validating amendment to section 35 read with section 13 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1985 retrospectively cured the jurisdictional defect on which the Tribunal had set aside revisional orders, making that earlier view ineffective and the revisional orders valid and enforceable. After that defect was removed, the petitioner remained entitled to have the other grounds in the appeals considered by the Tribunal, because those issues had not been adjudicated when the appeals were allowed only on jurisdiction. The appeals were therefore preservable for fresh consideration on the remaining points, while the jurisdiction question stood resolved by the validating provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>