<?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 (10) TMI 317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386833</link>
    <description>The appellate court partially allowed the writ appeal, setting aside findings on the transaction nature and Section 115-O scope. Upheld were the appeal filing direction and interim protection. The need for adjudication preceding the impugned order and natural justice violation were left for the Appellate Authority. The appellant got four weeks to appeal, to be decided within eight weeks by the Authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2020 07:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=590222" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (10) TMI 317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386833</link>
      <description>The appellate court partially allowed the writ appeal, setting aside findings on the transaction nature and Section 115-O scope. Upheld were the appeal filing direction and interim protection. The need for adjudication preceding the impugned order and natural justice violation were left for the Appellate Authority. The appellant got four weeks to appeal, to be decided within eight weeks by the Authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386833</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>