<?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>2023 (7) TMI 349 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440076</link>
    <description>The court quashed the order by the Income Tax Settlement Commission due to non-compliance with Section 245D(2D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was found to have paid the required tax and interest, entitling them to interest on the excess tax paid. The court directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Interim Board for Settlement, emphasizing that the decision was based solely on compliance with the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jul 2023 07:38:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=719000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 349 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440076</link>
      <description>The court quashed the order by the Income Tax Settlement Commission due to non-compliance with Section 245D(2D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was found to have paid the required tax and interest, entitling them to interest on the excess tax paid. The court directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Interim Board for Settlement, emphasizing that the decision was based solely on compliance with the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>