<?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 (9) TMI 202 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398083</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the learned Single Judge&#039;s order directing payment of 20% of the demand within a month, emphasizing the exercise of discretion. The Court refused to intervene unless arbitrariness or illegality was proven. The appellant was granted an extension to pay 10% by a specified date and the remaining 10% by a later deadline. The Writ Appeal was summarily dismissed with the mentioned observations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2020 11:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 202 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398083</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the learned Single Judge&#039;s order directing payment of 20% of the demand within a month, emphasizing the exercise of discretion. The Court refused to intervene unless arbitrariness or illegality was proven. The appellant was granted an extension to pay 10% by a specified date and the remaining 10% by a later deadline. The Writ Appeal was summarily dismissed with the mentioned observations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398083</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>