<?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 (9) TMI 57 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34907</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the ITAT&#039;s decision under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. It held that there was no apparent mistake to rectify and emphasized that decisions from different jurisdictional Tribunals are not binding. The court clarified that while writ petitions against Section 254(2) orders are maintainable, in this instance, the petition was misconceived and therefore dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 57 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34907</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the ITAT&#039;s decision under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. It held that there was no apparent mistake to rectify and emphasized that decisions from different jurisdictional Tribunals are not binding. The court clarified that while writ petitions against Section 254(2) orders are maintainable, in this instance, the petition was misconceived and therefore dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>