<?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 (4) TMI 417 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406301</link>
    <description>HC held that non-consideration of another HC judgment cannot be treated as a &quot;mistake apparent&quot; under section 254(2); the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its order under that provision and the correct remedy for an aggrieved party is to file an appeal. The Tribunal erred in allowing the Miscellaneous Application. Questions of law were decided in favour of the appellant-Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 14:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=641431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 417 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406301</link>
      <description>HC held that non-consideration of another HC judgment cannot be treated as a &quot;mistake apparent&quot; under section 254(2); the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its order under that provision and the correct remedy for an aggrieved party is to file an appeal. The Tribunal erred in allowing the Miscellaneous Application. Questions of law were decided in favour of the appellant-Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>