<?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>1985 (12) TMI 52 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26837</link>
    <description>Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is confined to judgments of the High Court delivered on references under section 256, so an appeal arising from Chapter XX-A cannot be certified for appeal to the Supreme Court under that provision. The Court treated the omission to cover Chapter XX-A appeals as a legislative gap that could not be filled by interpretation, and the request under section 261 was rejected. On the constitutional request, the Court found that the underlying matters did not raise substantial questions of law of general importance, so the requirements for a certificate of fitness under Articles 133 and 134A were not met and the oral applications were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:16:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (12) TMI 52 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26837</link>
      <description>Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is confined to judgments of the High Court delivered on references under section 256, so an appeal arising from Chapter XX-A cannot be certified for appeal to the Supreme Court under that provision. The Court treated the omission to cover Chapter XX-A appeals as a legislative gap that could not be filled by interpretation, and the request under section 261 was rejected. On the constitutional request, the Court found that the underlying matters did not raise substantial questions of law of general importance, so the requirements for a certificate of fitness under Articles 133 and 134A were not met and the oral applications were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26837</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>