<?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 22 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21457</link>
    <description>The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition despite objections raised by the Revenue. The court rejected the preliminary objection, citing the transfer of the petitioner&#039;s registered office and income-tax files to the court&#039;s jurisdiction. The court upheld the petitioner&#039;s entitlement to interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, relying on prior decisions supporting the claim. Additionally, the court affirmed the interpretation of &quot;regular assessment&quot; under sections 214(1) and 214(2), holding that earlier Division Bench judgments were binding. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed appropriate action by the tax authority without awarding costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:37:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 22 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21457</link>
      <description>The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition despite objections raised by the Revenue. The court rejected the preliminary objection, citing the transfer of the petitioner&#039;s registered office and income-tax files to the court&#039;s jurisdiction. The court upheld the petitioner&#039;s entitlement to interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, relying on prior decisions supporting the claim. Additionally, the court affirmed the interpretation of &quot;regular assessment&quot; under sections 214(1) and 214(2), holding that earlier Division Bench judgments were binding. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed appropriate action by the tax authority without awarding costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>