<?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>2021 (2) TMI 314 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403822</link>
    <description>The court acknowledged debatable questions regarding the validity of an order under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, and the retrospective application of an amended definition of a benami transaction. It directed further consideration, issuing notice to respondents. The court ordered maintenance of the status quo for the property covered by the challenged order until the next hearing on 26th February 2021.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:20:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=635820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 314 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403822</link>
      <description>The court acknowledged debatable questions regarding the validity of an order under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, and the retrospective application of an amended definition of a benami transaction. It directed further consideration, issuing notice to respondents. The court ordered maintenance of the status quo for the property covered by the challenged order until the next hearing on 26th February 2021.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>