<?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>1990 (12) TMI 38 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22455</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the Department regarding the bank guarantee commission but against the Department concerning the office expenses. The court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of interest on the fixed deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:58:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 38 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22455</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the Department regarding the bank guarantee commission but against the Department concerning the office expenses. The court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of interest on the fixed deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>