<?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>2007 (3) TMI 241 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30798</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the notice issued under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, requiring the petitioner to pay the tax due from another company. The court found that the notice was in accordance with the law, and the petitioner was liable to comply with it. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice, emphasizing its legality and validity in recovering tax dues from the petitioner as per statutory provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 241 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30798</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the notice issued under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, requiring the petitioner to pay the tax due from another company. The court found that the notice was in accordance with the law, and the petitioner was liable to comply with it. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice, emphasizing its legality and validity in recovering tax dues from the petitioner as per statutory provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>