<?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 (7) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27146</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the showcause notice issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under the Income Tax Act, ruling that the notice of acquisition was published within the stipulated time. The court interpreted Section 269D(1) of the Act in line with relevant case law, finding the initiation of proceedings timely. Additionally, the court emphasized that the authority&#039;s decision to initiate proceedings under Chapter XXA was not reviewable in a writ petition, directing the petitioner to address concerns through appropriate channels. The court dismissed the petition, with each party bearing their own costs and ordered timely communication of the decision to the relevant authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:40:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (7) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27146</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the showcause notice issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under the Income Tax Act, ruling that the notice of acquisition was published within the stipulated time. The court interpreted Section 269D(1) of the Act in line with relevant case law, finding the initiation of proceedings timely. Additionally, the court emphasized that the authority&#039;s decision to initiate proceedings under Chapter XXA was not reviewable in a writ petition, directing the petitioner to address concerns through appropriate channels. The court dismissed the petition, with each party bearing their own costs and ordered timely communication of the decision to the relevant authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>