<?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 (6) TMI 198 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395823</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Assessing Officer&#039;s invocation of Section 115-JC and rejecting claims of violation of natural justice and promissory estoppel. The court found substantial evidence of fraudulent transactions, justifying the denial of the tax holiday and the invocation of alternate minimum tax provisions. The petitioner&#039;s failure to pursue available appellate remedies further weakened their case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2020 16:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=614785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 198 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395823</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Assessing Officer&#039;s invocation of Section 115-JC and rejecting claims of violation of natural justice and promissory estoppel. The court found substantial evidence of fraudulent transactions, justifying the denial of the tax holiday and the invocation of alternate minimum tax provisions. The petitioner&#039;s failure to pursue available appellate remedies further weakened their case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>