<?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 (10) TMI 1206 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400232</link>
    <description>The High Court of Madras dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals, upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the order under section 263. The Court found that since the capital gains had already been taxed in subsequent years and both assessees had passed away, there was no legal question to address. The appeals were deemed liable to be dismissed, and no costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:18:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 1206 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400232</link>
      <description>The High Court of Madras dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals, upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the order under section 263. The Court found that since the capital gains had already been taxed in subsequent years and both assessees had passed away, there was no legal question to address. The appeals were deemed liable to be dismissed, and no costs were awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>