<?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>2019 (4) TMI 1037 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378593</link>
    <description>The court quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the stay petition, emphasizing the necessity for a detailed and reasoned decision. It highlighted the importance of adhering to CBDT Circulars and guidelines in assessing stay petitions. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the lifting of bank attachments and emphasizing the duty of the department to assist taxpayers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2019 14:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=567406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1037 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378593</link>
      <description>The court quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the stay petition, emphasizing the necessity for a detailed and reasoned decision. It highlighted the importance of adhering to CBDT Circulars and guidelines in assessing stay petitions. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the lifting of bank attachments and emphasizing the duty of the department to assist taxpayers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378593</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>