<?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 (12) TMI 668 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401869</link>
    <description>The court set aside the impugned order dated 18.10.2019, finding it unjustified based on available material. The writ petition was allowed, emphasizing the necessity for tangible evidence and proper CCIT approval for requiring a Tax Clearance Certificate under Section 230(1A). The court also noted the absence of Section 230&#039;s applicability to proceedings under the Black Money Act, suggesting legislative amendment if required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:35:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630578" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 668 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401869</link>
      <description>The court set aside the impugned order dated 18.10.2019, finding it unjustified based on available material. The writ petition was allowed, emphasizing the necessity for tangible evidence and proper CCIT approval for requiring a Tax Clearance Certificate under Section 230(1A). The court also noted the absence of Section 230&#039;s applicability to proceedings under the Black Money Act, suggesting legislative amendment if required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401869</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>