<?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 (7) TMI 136 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382440</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the Writ Petitions, requiring the petitioners to exhaust statutory remedies under the Income Tax Act. It upheld the Assessing Officer&#039;s jurisdiction to independently determine share values and clarified that the tax imposed was not retrospective under Section 115QA. No breach of natural justice was found, granting petitioners the liberty to raise objections before the DRP within two weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=577449" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 136 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382440</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the Writ Petitions, requiring the petitioners to exhaust statutory remedies under the Income Tax Act. It upheld the Assessing Officer&#039;s jurisdiction to independently determine share values and clarified that the tax imposed was not retrospective under Section 115QA. No breach of natural justice was found, granting petitioners the liberty to raise objections before the DRP within two weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382440</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>