<?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>1987 (8) TMI 38 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25128</link>
    <description>Interim injunction against recovery of the impugned municipal tax demand was continued because the dispute over revised property tax and rateable value raised substantial triable issues, including the effect of prior assessment orders, earlier part-deposits, the stage of completion and occupation of the building, and the components used in enhancing valuation. Applying the settled principles for interim relief, the Court found that the plaintiff needed only a prima facie substantial issue for trial, not a conclusive case, and that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable injury favoured protection pending adjudication. Continuation of relief was made conditional on an additional deposit of Rs. 35 lakhs within the time allowed, failing which the injunction would stand vacated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:42:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (8) TMI 38 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25128</link>
      <description>Interim injunction against recovery of the impugned municipal tax demand was continued because the dispute over revised property tax and rateable value raised substantial triable issues, including the effect of prior assessment orders, earlier part-deposits, the stage of completion and occupation of the building, and the components used in enhancing valuation. Applying the settled principles for interim relief, the Court found that the plaintiff needed only a prima facie substantial issue for trial, not a conclusive case, and that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable injury favoured protection pending adjudication. Continuation of relief was made conditional on an additional deposit of Rs. 35 lakhs within the time allowed, failing which the injunction would stand vacated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>