<?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>2020 (2) TMI 160 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391716</link>
    <description>The High Court held that it had no appellate or supervisory jurisdiction to examine the correctness or legality of an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai. On that jurisdictional ground, the office objection on maintainability was sustained, and the appeal was treated as not maintainable. The proceeding was therefore dismissed for want of maintainability, as the impugned order was not amenable to the High Court&#039;s scrutiny in the manner sought.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2020 09:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=602723" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 160 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391716</link>
      <description>The High Court held that it had no appellate or supervisory jurisdiction to examine the correctness or legality of an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai. On that jurisdictional ground, the office objection on maintainability was sustained, and the appeal was treated as not maintainable. The proceeding was therefore dismissed for want of maintainability, as the impugned order was not amenable to the High Court&#039;s scrutiny in the manner sought.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>