<?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>2019 (1) TMI 1998 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305946</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, finding in favor of the assessee. The Court held that the Tribunal&#039;s interference with the CIT (A) order was unjustified, given the established source of funds for the purchase of gold jewellery. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:43:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=700303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1998 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305946</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, finding in favor of the assessee. The Court held that the Tribunal&#039;s interference with the CIT (A) order was unjustified, given the established source of funds for the purchase of gold jewellery. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>