<?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 (9) TMI 204 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385436</link>
    <description>Delay was condoned and the Court then applied the CBDT&#039;s administrative de minimis tax-effect threshold under the 8 August 2019 circular. Because the tax effect in the matter was below the prescribed limit, the Court found no basis to interfere and dismissed the special leave petition. The order reflects use of the circular as a litigational filtering policy, with the low tax effect being decisive on maintainability for interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2019 07:33:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=586105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 204 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385436</link>
      <description>Delay was condoned and the Court then applied the CBDT&#039;s administrative de minimis tax-effect threshold under the 8 August 2019 circular. Because the tax effect in the matter was below the prescribed limit, the Court found no basis to interfere and dismissed the special leave petition. The order reflects use of the circular as a litigational filtering policy, with the low tax effect being decisive on maintainability for interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385436</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>