<?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>1991 (10) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21295</link>
    <description>A Karnataka High Court note on interim relief under the Income-tax Act, 1961 states that where property had already been taken into possession by the Income-tax Department under section 269UD and the property was said to be worth more than the amount paid by the Department, the property itself could be treated as adequate security for the amount paid. On that footing, requiring the appellants to furnish a bank guarantee was considered unnecessary and the condition was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:02:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60294" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21295</link>
      <description>A Karnataka High Court note on interim relief under the Income-tax Act, 1961 states that where property had already been taken into possession by the Income-tax Department under section 269UD and the property was said to be worth more than the amount paid by the Department, the property itself could be treated as adequate security for the amount paid. On that footing, requiring the appellants to furnish a bank guarantee was considered unnecessary and the condition was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>