<?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 1053 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429495</link>
    <description>The HC set aside the Dispute Resolution Panel&#039;s directions dated 28.02.2020, ruling them as barred by limitation. The Court determined that the limitation for passing the order expired on 31.03.2017, one year after the Tribunal&#039;s order was received in 2016. The argument that the petitioner&#039;s cooperation extended the limitation period was rejected. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was nullified with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=694301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 1053 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429495</link>
      <description>The HC set aside the Dispute Resolution Panel&#039;s directions dated 28.02.2020, ruling them as barred by limitation. The Court determined that the limitation for passing the order expired on 31.03.2017, one year after the Tribunal&#039;s order was received in 2016. The argument that the petitioner&#039;s cooperation extended the limitation period was rejected. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was nullified with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>