<?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>1986 (3) TMI 47 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26471</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to a notice under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act was rejected because the notice was addressed to the partnership firm, not to an individual partner. The High Court found no factual basis to treat the notice as one issued against the partner personally, and therefore saw no reason to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The impugned notice was left undisturbed and the petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:34:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 47 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26471</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to a notice under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act was rejected because the notice was addressed to the partnership firm, not to an individual partner. The High Court found no factual basis to treat the notice as one issued against the partner personally, and therefore saw no reason to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The impugned notice was left undisturbed and the petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>