<?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 (6) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408110</link>
    <description>The court found that the orders were not passed within the statutory period as required by Section 26(7). Due to lack of transparency and discrepancies in records, the court concluded that the orders were invalid. As a result, the writ petitions were allowed, and the challenged orders were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408110</link>
      <description>The court found that the orders were not passed within the statutory period as required by Section 26(7). Due to lack of transparency and discrepancies in records, the court concluded that the orders were invalid. As a result, the writ petitions were allowed, and the challenged orders were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>