<?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 (11) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414275</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging an ITAT order under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to CBDT Circulars setting monetary limits for appeals, highlighting the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court underscored the significance of considering the cascading effect in tax cases and the limitations on invoking writ jurisdiction in the presence of alternate remedies. Ultimately, the Court ruled against the petitioners for not meeting the exceptions justifying Article 226 intervention, emphasizing adherence to Circular provisions and statutory avenues for redress.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2021 15:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=660040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414275</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging an ITAT order under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to CBDT Circulars setting monetary limits for appeals, highlighting the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court underscored the significance of considering the cascading effect in tax cases and the limitations on invoking writ jurisdiction in the presence of alternate remedies. Ultimately, the Court ruled against the petitioners for not meeting the exceptions justifying Article 226 intervention, emphasizing adherence to Circular provisions and statutory avenues for redress.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>