<?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 985 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383289</link>
    <description>The judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the stay order issued by the appellate authority, emphasizing that the courts should not interfere with discretionary orders unless there is an ultra vires action. The judge directed the appellate authority to consider the amounts already paid by the petitioner and extended the compliance date for the condition in the stay order by two months due to the petitioner&#039;s genuine pursuit of the writ petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2019 10:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=580217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 985 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383289</link>
      <description>The judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the stay order issued by the appellate authority, emphasizing that the courts should not interfere with discretionary orders unless there is an ultra vires action. The judge directed the appellate authority to consider the amounts already paid by the petitioner and extended the compliance date for the condition in the stay order by two months due to the petitioner&#039;s genuine pursuit of the writ petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>