<?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>2022 (5) TMI 233 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421973</link>
    <description>The court upheld the petitioner&#039;s challenge based on the limitation under Rule 68B but affirmed the Income Tax Department&#039;s authority to recover tax through alternative methods. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the time limit for property sale in tax recovery cases, allowing the Department to initiate proceedings for tax recovery through other provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 May 2022 08:35:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=678191" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 233 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421973</link>
      <description>The court upheld the petitioner&#039;s challenge based on the limitation under Rule 68B but affirmed the Income Tax Department&#039;s authority to recover tax through alternative methods. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the time limit for property sale in tax recovery cases, allowing the Department to initiate proceedings for tax recovery through other provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>