<?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 (3) TMI 55 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25496</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging Income-tax Act notices for various assessment years. The petitioner, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, sought exemption under section 10(20A) of the Act, claiming to fall under statutory bodies eligible for exemption. The court emphasized exhausting alternative remedies before invoking High Court jurisdiction under article 226, stating it should be for specific circumstances like fundamental rights infringement or jurisdictional errors. As the petitioner failed to establish interference necessity with the assessment proceedings, the writ petitions were dismissed, underscoring the need to exhaust alternative remedies before seeking relief through the High Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:00:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64494" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 55 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25496</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging Income-tax Act notices for various assessment years. The petitioner, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, sought exemption under section 10(20A) of the Act, claiming to fall under statutory bodies eligible for exemption. The court emphasized exhausting alternative remedies before invoking High Court jurisdiction under article 226, stating it should be for specific circumstances like fundamental rights infringement or jurisdictional errors. As the petitioner failed to establish interference necessity with the assessment proceedings, the writ petitions were dismissed, underscoring the need to exhaust alternative remedies before seeking relief through the High Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25496</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>