<?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>2009 (7) TMI 103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34749</link>
    <description>The court allowed the appeals, upheld the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 and the provisional attachment order under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act. The court imposed a cost on the writ petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions. The decision was based on the sufficiency of material for the &quot;reason to believe&quot; and the erroneous nature of the alleged concession made by the Standing Counsel.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34749</link>
      <description>The court allowed the appeals, upheld the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 and the provisional attachment order under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act. The court imposed a cost on the writ petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions. The decision was based on the sufficiency of material for the &quot;reason to believe&quot; and the erroneous nature of the alleged concession made by the Standing Counsel.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>