<?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>1996 (2) TMI 45 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18135</link>
    <description>The court ruled against the Appellate Tribunal, finding that the Income-tax Officer was correct in denying the continuation of registration as Form No. 12 was not signed by all partners, contravening rule requirements. The court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with registration rules, citing relevant case law. The judgment favored the Department, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:26:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 45 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18135</link>
      <description>The court ruled against the Appellate Tribunal, finding that the Income-tax Officer was correct in denying the continuation of registration as Form No. 12 was not signed by all partners, contravening rule requirements. The court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with registration rules, citing relevant case law. The judgment favored the Department, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>