<?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 (10) TMI 495 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428937</link>
    <description>The court clarified that the attachment of Fixed Deposits would continue despite the petitioner being allowed to file a stay application before the Assessing Authority. In a separate case, the attachment of a property under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act was deemed to have lapsed as the 60-day period post-assessment order had expired. As a result, the attachment was lifted, and the petitioner incurred no costs in the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2022 08:48:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=693234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 495 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428937</link>
      <description>The court clarified that the attachment of Fixed Deposits would continue despite the petitioner being allowed to file a stay application before the Assessing Authority. In a separate case, the attachment of a property under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act was deemed to have lapsed as the 60-day period post-assessment order had expired. As a result, the attachment was lifted, and the petitioner incurred no costs in the matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>